Hallo
In the near future I will need to draft some guidelines for colleagues
who will be using RDA with ISBD and MARC21. Most of them are
multi-skilled and do fairly small amounts of cataloguing, so the
training has to be quick and simple. I will have to include guidelines
for creating RDA
From: Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2012 5:29:53 AM
Subject: [RDA-L] Added elements for expressions
Hallo
In the near future I will need to draft some guidelines
Description and
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette
Mary O'Reilly
Sent: August 23, 2012 11:21 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field?
Dear colleagues,
I come very late to this thread, because I've only just been
Thanks, Mac. The problem with 'writer of added text' is that it is
defined as 'contributing to an expression of a primarily non-textual
work by providing text for the non-textual work' - but this compilation
is all textual and all the input is of equal standing. (We aren't
considering using the
authors. However, I think the decision for most, is a
negative, but with the increasingly networked environment the scope of
what is necessary is expanding, that not could become yes.
--
Sean Chen slc.c...@gmail.com
On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly
,
and potentially different roles.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary
O'Reilly
Sent: February-26-13 4:23 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Hello
I need to prepare simple inhouse documentation for non-BK materials and
am wondering whether or how we should use fields 344-347 for sound
recordings, videos, CD-ROMs and suchlike, to cover the details which
used to go in 300 $b.
In the Toolkit the RDAMARC mapping still points to 300
I would use author for both the teller and the person told to, since
they both make creator-level contributions to a work that is primarily
textual in content.
The examples in 19.2.1.3 for two or more entities responsible for the
creation of the work performing different roles show that both
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod wrote:
By definition isn't any person, body, or family in 1XX a creator?
As I understand it, there is no logical link in RDA between entities
considered as creators (i.e., entities which can take relators from the
creator list in Appendix I) and entities which can be the
Thanks to everyone who advised about 34X use, and apologies for delayed
thanks - I was waiting to see if there were any different strategy
suggestions. We'll assess how much 34X work could be covered by
templates and fixes and how much it would add to work on individual
records before deciding
The Google Books entry for The Director's Event shows that the sections
of the book are headed, Abraham Polonsky, Budd Boetticher, etc., so
it does seem that this resource consists of five quite separate and
substantial interviews, each with a different creator-level interviewee,
in which case I
Hello,
I have come across a number of resources, mainly art-related, which
consist of a main text by one person with a number of very brief essays,
interviews and suchlike by other people. Both the main and the minor
components are about the same artist, exhibition, or movement, so the
minor
Hello,
Can anyone elucidate where it would be correct to use the relators
'interviewer (expression) and 'interviewee (expression)?
My original take was that the decision would depend on whether the
interviewer or the interviewee was providing the real content. If the
interviewer was
Thanks, Mac and Deborah
Interesting to get two such different answers, both with much to be said
for them.
RDA does have the concept of 'supplementary content' (e.g. indexes,
bibliographies, appendices), and such content is presumably irrelevant
to whether the resource is treated as single-work
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary
O'Reilly
Sent: 23 May 2013 09:13
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Interviews expressions
Thanks, Mac and Deborah
Interesting to get two such different answers, both with much to be said
for them.
RDA does have the concept
We would probably use '[2012?]' as the conjectural publication date for
example 1. Our rule is to use the best evidence readily available,
which is often but not invariably the copyright. I've checked Amazon in
similar cases and have always found that their date, which presumably
reflects
What about liturgical works? The main entry (i.e., the name in a
name-title AAP) is the associated church or denomination, but this is
nevertheless categorised as 'other corporate body associated with the
work', in which case 'issuing body' is correct.
'issuing body' could also be used as a
Hello
I've just come across NDMSO's MARC and RDA Relators Reconciled,
http://www.loc.gov/marc/annmarcrdarelators.html, dated May. This offers
a single list of relators, with MARC/RDA overlaps resolved.
But I'm not clear about the status of this list. Does it mean that LC
now approves
Mary O'Reilly
bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk wrote:
Hello
I've just come across NDMSO's MARC and RDA Relators Reconciled,
http://www.loc.gov/marc/annmarcrdarelators.html, dated May. This offers
a single list of relators, with MARC/RDA overlaps resolved.
But I'm not clear about
-1.pdf
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernadette Mary
O'Reilly
Sent: 23 August 2013 09:39
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Reconciliation of RDA and MARC relators
Thanks, Joan
20 matches
Mail list logo
