Hi,
Perhaps this same idea has been stated and I missed it. If not, how about going
for the full title as title proper in each case. I know in doing this we'd have
to forget that the first ISBD is supposed to separate title proper from
subtitle. Use a different punctuation and take out
Jack Wu said:
Perhaps this same idea has been stated and I missed it. If not, how about =
going for the full title as title proper in each case.
There are many cases of short titles proper (such as the name of a
country, or surname of an person) where the addition of a distinctive
subtitle to
28.08.2012 19:29, Brenndorfer, Thomas:
RDA has four conventions for conveying relationships between works
and between expressions (relationships between manifestations and
between items use all of these conventions except authorized access
points):
1. identifier
2. authorized access point
3.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Adam said:
RDA
and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Adam said:
RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
with the same title
AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Just a question here. I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title
to distinguish it from others.
I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to
take the qualifier from
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 20:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 20:30
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
with the same title:
6.27 Constructing Access Points
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
According to FRBR, summary as a relationship exists between works or
expressions of different works. I am not sure if it is helpful.
Thanks
Joan
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:09 AM, John Hostage
host
John Hostage wrote:
Aren't these relationships overdetermined at this point? We have
additional access points on both records as well as 2 authority records
that refer to each other and essentially duplicate the information on the
bib records. All this to indicate relationships that can
:* August 28, 2012 12:50 PM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
** **
According to FRBR, summary as a relationship exists between works or
expressions of different works. I am not sure if it is helpful.
Thanks
Joan
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: August 27, 2012 11:25 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Adam said:
RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works
with the same title ...
But not in 245 where
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Gene Fieg wrote:
Just a question here. I just looked at the RDA suggested additions to a title
to distinguish it from others.
I did not see Summary listed there; it might be justified by the statement to
take the qualifier from the work
itself, but what some other
I have two publications with the same title proper, one of which is a summary
of the other:
245 00 Water availability in the Ovens : $b a report to the Australian
Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
264 #1 [Clayton South, Victoria] : $b CSIRO, $c [2008]
...@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 5:44 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Naming works question
I have two publications with the same title proper, one of which is a summary
of the other:
245 00 Water availability in the Ovens : $b a report to the Australian
Adam Schiff wrote:
The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the source
work and
the derivative work. On the record for the summary I could add the
following:
787 08 $i Summary of (work): $t Water availability in the Ovens
but since the title is identical, this must
/ Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:36 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
Adam Schiff wrote:
The question that I have is how best to distinguish between
-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:44 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Naming works question
I have two publications with the same title
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Layne, Sara
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 4:42 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
I agree with Kevin. But would you also need to add (Report) to the reciprocal
787?
Sara (who doesn't yet catalog in RDA
Adam L. Schiff said:
The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the
source work and the derivative work.
Margaret Mann advocated the sort of qualification you propose. It is
my understanding the RDA does not allow it, apart from something like
(Conference) after an initialism
How about that old standby: Selections. And then use the cutter of the
main work and add a 2 to it.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Adam L. Schiff asch...@u.washington.eduwrote:
I have two publications with the same title proper, one of which is a
summary of the other:
245 00 Water
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: August-27-12 7:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Adam L. Schiff said:
The question that I have is how best to distinguish between the
source work and the derivative work.
Margaret Mann advocated the sort of qualification you propose. It is
my understanding the RDA does not allow it, apart from
.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Robert Maxwell
[robert_maxw...@byu.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 6:48 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
, 2012 6:48 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Naming works question
I think many of the linking fields (including 787) are best used to record
manifestation-level relationships. If I were recording a work-level
relationship, I'd probably use 730 in this case, with an authorized
Adam said:
RDA definitely allows the addition of qualifiers to distinguish works with
the same title ...
But not in 245 where they would be most helpful, and where Margaret Mann
would have them (pre MARC), right?
I can't seem to find a good relationship designator for the access point
made
26 matches
Mail list logo
