Am 30.04.2011 12:20, schrieb James Weinheimer:
Concerning MARC coding, as far as I am concerned, the changes toward
FRBR started from the wrong point. (For the moment, I will assume
that FRBR would be a good thing to implement) Changes started with
the data (RDA) and not with the format.
Thank you, Deborah, and I should have known of course that RDA would not
lose this basic descriptive function, just make it more... what is the
word? Explicit, I suppose.
As a cataloger of many works from the hand-press period, where spelling
lacks uniformity, and typographical errors, arcane
Am 02.05.2011 14:21, schrieb Will Evans:
Your faith in the authors of RDA is touching, but it
seems to me they assume users live in a vacuum and are incapable of
acquiring a modicum of cultural literacy.
And anyway, Latin is not dead as long as English lives. English is,
of all non-Romance
Concerning the standard catalog abbreviations, I wish that people would
stop thinking of them as Latin abbreviations and instead, as data
that has been entered consistently in our records over many, many
years. Because it has been, and consequently, it is a very valuable
commodity. Thinking in
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Will Evans
Sent: May 2, 2011 8:21 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Latin, the dead language
As a cataloger of
MARC also insists it's not a display mechanism. MARC is a transmission
format.
On 4/29/2011 12:37 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
I am not one of the people on all of these committees, but I think
discussions of MARC keep coming up on the RDA list is because RDA
insists that it is not a display
[Apologies for cross-posting. Please contact Jodi at jschnei...@pobox.com if
you have any questions.]
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jodi Schneider jschnei...@pobox.com
Date: Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:33 AM
Subject: Extended deadline for JCDL workshop STLR2011: Semantic Web
Mac,
It's Schiff, not Schift.
Secondly, the code i in LDR/18 says nothing about abbreviations. It
only refers to whether the record contains ISBD punctuation provisions:
18 - Descriptive cataloging form
One-character alphanumeric code that indicates characteristics of the
descriptive data
Jim said:
Concerning the standard catalog abbreviations, I wish that people would
stop thinking of them as Latin abbreviations and instead, as data
that has been entered consistently in our records over many, many
years.
And can be translated into any language of the catalogue more easily
It's interesting that MARBI felt free to redefine LDR/17 blank from
full level to PCC/PN/CONSER level, lacking required AACR2 data;
LDR/18 i from full ISBD to ISBD punctuation (but not abbreviations)
within fields; but hesitates to use 260$d with copyright symbol for
copyright year, which has
10 matches
Mail list logo
