I think CE is more usually taken as Common Era, rather than
Christian Era. Christian Era would, I agree, defeat the object.
The Wikipedia article on the abbreviations has the following links to
published usage:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=BC,BCEyear_start=1800year_e
Yes, fl. was allowed in AACR2. You'll find it in the examples in AACR2
22.17A, and in many headings across the LC/NAF.
Although the examples in RDA 9.19.1.5 spell it out as Flourished, NACO
practice follows the LCPS for 9.19.1.1, and prefers Active. I suppose
one can be active, without
Odd we didn't get many fl.s, then - so did NACO used to have neither 'active'
or 'fl.'? Seems to be on the MARC21 pagesI'm pretty sure they used to be
filtered out according to 1 protocol or another, or perhaps it was just an
unpopular practice..
I'm not sure whether 'active' is a
A quick search on our local copy of the LC/NAF reveals 28332 personal
name headings containing the characters fl. That will include some
name-titles.
The LCRI limited its use, except exceptionally, to spans of dates and to
pre-20th century persons. Neither RDA nor the LCPS has either of those
Strange, then... I've been labouring under the illusion we were dissenters all
this time, whereas actually we were entirely conformist!
Well, I'm not sure what we'll go for in the end - although I think locally
we'll probably prefer fl./flourished/active over adding occupations, not least
The actual rules in the LCRIs are at
https://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/22-17-22-20-additions-to-distinguish-identical-names
22.17-22.20. Additions to Distinguish Identical Names. Although
flourished dates are allowed, they are sixth of seven in order of
preference. Therefore, they
The thing with occupations, is that while you can only add one to an
access point to make it unique (and the far-sighted among us regard
access points as ephemeral, apparently), you can record as many as you
like as discrete data elements in the 374 MARC field. So RDA authority
records become much
Hi Richard
Nope! Well not uniformly, not by a long chalk. We use fairly nonstandard
headings (although not as nonstandard as I thought, apparently), and internally
maintained authorities, although bulk loads of ebooks mean we go for NAF
headings where consistency can be maintained with our own
Martin
The BL has used LC/NAF in current cataloguing for a number of years, but
we have large numbers of legacy bibliographic records containing
headings from our own former national authority file, and others created
to standards that preceded that (for example, successive iterations of
Richard,
I am seeing lots of BL created RDA conference headings show up for individual
conferences, many using initials. The biggest difference I see is the word
(Conference) added to the initials.
Example:
111: 2|aWWIC (Conference)|n(10th :|d2012 :|cThera Island, Greece)
I like it since it
I would hope that if the initialism is spelled out somewhere, that, at
least, a xref is created, if not the main entry for the body. I don't
think using initialisms for corporate bodies is going to help the patron.
After all, sir, Just waht is the WWIC, the patron might ask.
On Mon, Jul 23,
Gene,
Using such terms is a very strong 'pattern' of naming in the sciences. My most
recent list to check included:
CCPI 2011|d(2011 :|cBordeaux, France)
CGWS 2011|d(2011 :|cBordeaux, France)
DQDI 2012|d(2012 :|cPusan, Korea)
DSRC 2010|d(2010 :|cHouston, Texas)
EC 2012|d(2012 :|cZakopane,
Bob,
Thanks! I hope we will have some examples of such headings since this is a
pretty major change from AACR2/NACO practice.
Mary Charles
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of
13 matches
Mail list logo
