Dana Van Meter posted:
In other words, would I also need a |e of editor, or if not editor, then a
|e editor of compilation. I think my major problem is in understanding
exactly what a compilation is. LC , under AACR2 did not even have a 700
for Garfinkle ...
Omitting the 700 for the poet is an
I'm confused about the capitalization of the examples in 2.5.6.3
(Recording Designations of a Named Revision of an Edition).
This rule and its examples came over from AACR2 mostly untouched (the
phrase designation of replaces AACR2's statement relating to ... and
that's about it), except that
My earlier detailed answer seems to have gone missing.
Dana VanMeter posted:
Under AACR2, LC has Levine Melammed as the author. About half of the book
is the poems by Garfinkle ...
It's not AACR2's fault that there is no 700 for Garfinkle. You should
add that 700 if not replacing the AACR2
I look at A.5 about the capitalization of edition statement. It says to
capitalize the first word or abbreviation of the first word in a
designation edition. It also refers to 2.5.2. It does not indicate 2.5.6
Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition. So I assume that we do not
have to
I agree with Joan. The rules about capitalization are in appendix A, and
A.5 only tells us to capitalize the element designation of edition,
but not the element designation of a named revision of an edition
(which, personally, I find a rather odd element, by the way). I think
there is simply a
If the example *World's classics ed., New ed. rev*. appears under 2.5.1.4
Recording Edition Statement. It really should not include the designations
of a named revision. Go too far!
Thanks,
Joan Wang
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:08 AM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.eduwrote:
There is also
two or more but not all works ... in a particular form means your
phrase
incomplete works in a single form. (6.2.2.10.3 a)
???
by the way, I feel that a good word would be selected works in single form
and selected works not in single form.
I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for
I think the lack of any subsection in 6.2.2 for compilations by more than
one ? person/family/corporate body means there are no special rules for
those compilations. In other words, we don't use conventional collective
titles for those, so we default to whatever title the compilation is known
by
Let me rephrase my question. Thanks to Arthur's help.
Does 6.2.2.10.3 other compilations includes selected works in a single
form, and selected works not in a single form? If it is, the languages of
the rule is too grey :)
For both categories, RDA tells us to record the preferred title for each
John Hostage wrote:
There is also this example in 2.5.1.4:
World's classics ed., New ed. rev.
Oddly, this example is almost identical to one in 2.5.6.3
(Recordingdesignations of a named revision of an edition):
new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated
Designation of edition: World's
Hi Joan,
Yes, I think that is correct: 6.2.2.10.3 a) covers selected works in a
single form, and 6.2.2.10.3 b) covers selected works in more than one form
(meaning, some of the selections are in one form, and some selections are
in different form(s)).
In the case of selected works in more than
Recording each separate work's title is something we do all the time in music
cataloging. In MARC, you use the field 700 12 creator's name. $t title of
one work. For each work, you do a new 700 field. When you name all the works
this way, RDA (for instance, in 6.2.2.10.3, Alternative) allows
Great! Heidrun.
These examples should be reexamined.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote:
John Hostage wrote:
There is also this example in 2.5.1.4:
World's classics ed., New ed. rev.
Oddly, this example is
The 1XX field relates only to the title in the 240 or 245. Fields 730 and 740
should be used for titles that do not have a personal, family, or corporate
body name as part of the authorized access point. There is no inherent
relationship between a title given in 7XX (or 8XX) and a name given
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of
inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?)
Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want
to go there?
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Joan Wang
I am no expert, but I have used 346 in the few RDA records I have made
for DVDs, specifically so that I could include PAL/NTSC information. I
have seen other records in OCLC that do the same thing.
Perhaps the word analog in the description is unnecessary.
On 4/12/2013 6:32 AM, John Williams
Hi, Kevin
Do you mean if a person appears in 100 field, his/her name is still allowed
to appear in 700 field for his/her another work? I thought that we would
use 730/740 field (with the second indicator 2) for his/her another work in
the same compilation. Or both are optional.
Thanks for your
Thank you Mac. I also thought not having a 700 for Garfinkle was an
error, and I will be adding one for her in my record.
After thinking on this a bit more I'm starting to feel that LC considered
this book to be a commentary and cataloged it following the rule for a
Commentary (21.13B1): If the
I'm not Kevin, but yes, definitely it is fine to use the same name in 100 and
700 (or 110 and 710). As Kevin said, the 1xx field has no necessary relation to
any title other than that in the 240 or 245. A 730 or 740 does not inherently
have anything to do with the 1xx.
Jean
From: Resource
Thanks, Jean.
I was not aware with that.
Joan Wang
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Harden, Jean jean.har...@unt.edu wrote:
I’m not Kevin, but yes, definitely it is fine to use the same name in
100 and 700 (or 110 and 710). As Kevin said, the 1xx field has no necessary
relation to any
This answer prompts some questions for me.
1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented
underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or
are we to use performer only, to cover all those types of situations
represented by the more specific indented not
Dana Van Meter said:
I would prefer something more along the lines of |e author of added
commentary, rather than |e author, but that doesn't exist.
These two do exist:
writer of added commentary
writer of added text
but if added, the relator terms would be longer than the entry
Arthur Liu posted:
In the case of selected works in more than one form, I think we use the
conventional collective title *Works. *followed by *Selections* (instead
of, for example, *Novels. Selections*).
Wouldn' those conventional titles be 240 uniform titles? Wouldn't
there still need to a a
On May 24, 2013 6:45 PM, Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote:
This answer prompts some questions for me.
1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented
underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or
are we to use performer only, to cover all
24 matches
Mail list logo
