Adolfo,
My understanding of FRBR is that regardless of independent existence prior to its
appearance, each poem, short story, song, etc., is considered a work in and of itself
regardless of whether their creator considered them such. Since a "compilation"
is simply defined as a gathering of m
James,
Before making our records even more complicated (and committing more
and more ever-disappearing resources) it would make sense to find out
if collective uniform titles are/could be useful to the public and if
not, why not, and then continue from there. Otherwise, we are all
working on
James Weinheimer wrote:
On 12/20/2013 2:49 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
Adger Williams wrote:
Aren't conventional collective titles really Form/Genre headings?
(Poems. Selections, vs. Essays Selections, vs. Works Selections)
Would they not serve their function less confusingly
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
But you know that we had non of that casuistry in our rules?
And for reasons that had been discussed thoroughly for quite some time.
Did we or our users suffer from that or were they pestering us
for qualified contentional collective titles?
Isn't it just the very proli
tles". Very
seldom does it require more than a moment's thought.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bernhard Eversberg
mailto:e...@biblio.tu-bs.de>> wrote:
Am 20.12.2013 13 :37, schrieb Heidrun
Wiesenmüller:
I think the interesting point to note is that not
We are talking about the level of the work here.
The title of the manifestation is, of course, always recorded in the
respective manifestation element.
Heidrun
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Am 20.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
I think the interesting point to note is that not
Adolfo,
I've read up the comments in the PCC-list archive on this topic.
I like the practice of UCSD (I quote from Ryan Finnerty's mail): "UCSD
does not use CCTs when the works in a compilation are issued for the
first time in that compilation. Examples include an original book of
poems by on
Jamie,
Two more questions about the forthcoming transfer of RDA-L:
1. Will the URLs for mails in the present archive still be working?
For example, will
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg11767.html
still retrieve your announcement of 18 December? I've sometimes includ
Adam,
These examples all seem to follow LC's interpretation of the first
sentence of RDA 6.2.2.10, i.e. none of these collections was treated as
being known under its own title.
So, is it correct to assume that LC's rather extreme interpretation
(that a collection can only become known by it
Mac,
Yes, I was only talking about collective titles as a subtype of the
former uniform titles.
It seems RDA calls this a "conventional collective title". The glossary
gives as the definition: "A title used as the preferred title for a
compilation containing two or more works by one person,
James,
All of these careful arrangements *completely disintegrated* when they
were placed into the computer catalog. Since computers are rather
mindless, the uniform title "Works" is now placed alphabetically under
the author's name ("W") and as a consequence, people are supposed to
*active
With respect to collective titles, it seems to me that there are two
trends at present which are quite contrary to each other.
On the one hand, what we see is an increase of the use of collective
titles, especially in LC's practice: Not only was the LCRI for AACR2
25.10A abandonded (which said
I am uncertain about the relationship of 6.2.2.10 (Recording the
Preferred Title for a Compilation of Works of One Person, Family, or
Corporate Body) and 6.27.1.9 (Additions to Access Points Representing
Works) - both in theory and in practice.
If I've got two different collections of works o
I'd like to add my thanks for sharing this huge amount of work with the
community.
After having started on the Bodleian's documents, I'm most favourably
impressed. These materials are very thorough with lots of helpful
detail, easy to understand, and contain very good explanations even for
di
Mac,
Many thanks to yourself and your grandson!
My interpretation is that the power of actually granting the degree
resides with the university only. But obviously the faculty must tell
the representative of the university (the chancellor) who is to be
decorated in this way. I think this is q
According to the German RAK rules, a thesis note is also recorded if
there is no formal thesis statement, i.e. if it's not the "real" thesis
which was handed in for the degree, but a later publication of the text.
There is only a slight difference in the style of the notes:
Note for the "real"
John,
I think we're looking at this a little too closely. This element grew out of a
note in AACR2 practice. It was never intended to be so precise.
My old fault: Being German (and therefore, very trusting to authority),
I tend to take the text too seriously...
Note that in 7.9.1.3 i
, 2010.
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Tuesday,
On a related note:
The other day, we were wondering how habilitation theses should be
treated under RDA. These are quite common in Germany. In case you're not
familiar with this European concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation
Some universities grant the academic degree of "Dr. ha
Mac,
Another of those ambiguous English words. It can mean the teaching
staff of an educational institution. But in this context, it means a
subunit of a university which grants degrees. In other words, the
body which granted the degree should be in 502. $b.
(...)
The institution in 502
John,
I think the RDA instruction was probably worded that way to allow freedom to
record whatever feels most useful and to take into account varying amounts of
information available. In most cases it's enough to record the university
name, but some libraries feel very particular about recor
ses by department. I haven't come up with a
relationship designator for that which is holding up our converting the thesis
template to RDA.
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
I'm not quite certain about the meaning of "faculty" in the element
"Dissertation or Thesis Information".
7.9.3.3 reads: "Record the name of the granting institution or faculty."
I assume that the example "University College, London" is supposed to
illustrate a case where the degree is granted
Pete,
Working in Germany, I can't see the full OCLC record either, but I know
exactly what you mean as this is a question which has bothered me for
some time, as well.
In fact, I've brought the same point up twice on this list before (oh
dear, it seems I'm repeating myself...). Read up these
Isn't it amazing that *nobody* has commented on the new prices for the
RDA Toolkit?
Looking at http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/2014pricechange, I had a
short moment of mirth when I noticed that the symbol for the British
pound is used for the Euro prices as well (let's wait and see whether i
We've been discussing 2.3.2.6 "Collective Title and Titles of Individual
Contents" the other day, and there was some disagreement about its
meaning, especially with regard to the optional additions.
It seems to me that 2.3.2.6 covers two different cases:
#1: A resource containing several works
Mac,
Heidrun said:
That confirms my suspicion that in many (though not all) cases, the best
solution for the German version of RDA would be to translate both
"government" and "jurisdiction" with the same German term
"Gebietskoerperschaft".
This ignores the fact that "government" refers to tho
John,
It is true that in RDA "government" and "jurisdiction" are used almost interchangeably in the sense of
Gebietskoerperschaft, but perhaps with subtle differences. That paragraph in 11.2.2.5.4 gives an idea of what is meant by
government, but it uses "jurisdiction" in another sense, which
Mac said:
Verena Schaffner asked:
How would you define the differences between "jurisdiction", "government" a=
nd "territorial authority"?
They are not mutually exclusive. We normally use "jurisdiction" to
mean the larger government in which a smaller one is found, e.g.,
"British Columbia" i
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: 05 No
Mac said:
If the place is part of the corporate body name, obviously a
geographical qualifier is not needed for the name used as an entry. If
removing that geographic name for a cross reference, should it not
then be a qualifier at the end of the shorter form of the name?
Exactly. And that's
Reading up on the treatment of conferences under RDA, I got a bit
worried when I came to the question of the name of a conference. There's
a very good presentation
http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_conferences.ppt
which, among many other useful things, explains that the name of
c
Following this lively discussion, I find it harder and harder to make up
my own mind...
With persons, I believe that (as I've said before) using dates as a
means of distinction doesn't really help a lot. And as long as the data
from the authority record is easily accessible (which it is in man
There is an interesting difference between the instruction on authorized
access points for corporate bodies and that on variant access points:
11.13.1.1 General Guidelines on Constructing Authorized Access Points to
Represent Corporate Bodies
"Make the additions specified at 11.13.1.3–11.13.1
Mac,
Hedrun said:
Corporate bodies are considered to be the originator if
A) they have prepared the work or
B) they have initiated and edited the work
What about "prepared by Alpha Consulting for Beta Society"? Often
societies, government offices, and other corporate bodies, commission
a stud
John,
Isn't a festschrift by definition a compilation of of works by different persons,
families, or corporate bodies? As such it would fall under RDA 6.27.1.4 and the
authorized access point would be the preferred title of the compilation, so no
"corporate main entry."
Yes, but isn't that
Mac said:
In our practice, it is not enough to have produced the work, the work
must be "official". An art galley produces as exhibition catalogue,
but the main entry is the artist, due to the reproductions of the
artist's works being the prominent feature (336 still image precedes
336 text).
Richard,
There are sub-elements for Location of Conference, Etc., and Location of Headquarters,
but in 11.3.1.1 these are just examples (note the instruction says ".e.g.").
I did indeed notice the "e.g." and found that odd as well. If location
of conference and location of headquarters are j
Bernhard said:
28.10.2013 09:11, Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of
corporate bodies which are "responsible for originating, issuing, or
causing to be issued". The definition in RAK is: "a corporate body which
has
Adam said:
I think the instruction was written as it is because only one place
may be used in a qualifier when needed to break a conflict.
Yes, that seems very plausible. One gets the feeling that the person(s)
who wrote the instruction were mainly thinking of access points and not
of the r
Mac said:
Our practice has changed drastically. For example, once "Journal of
the American Chemical Society" would be been entered under the Society.
Actually, it still is under the German rules.
RAK has a rule which is similar (yet not identical) to RDA's idea of
corporate bodies which are
Can it really be that 11.3.3.3 allows only for the recording of *one*
local place associated with a corporate body? The instruction reads:
"For other bodies, record the name of the local place that is commonly
associated with the name of the body (...)."
Unlike 11.3.2.3 (Recording location of
The German rules for main entry under corporate bodies differ very much
from the Anglo-American tradition, which makes it sometimes difficult
for me to decide when RDA 19.2.1.1.1 (Corporate bodies considered to be
creators) is to be applied.
Would the following types of publications usually be
Karen said,
But, we are avoiding the Latin terms in RDA as often as poss., correct?
"Verso" is a perfectly good English word, which you can find in any
decent dictionary. Granted, it's a loan word from Latin. But so is
"title" and "page" (which I assume were brought to the English language
John,
I'm glad to hear you'll be blogging again from this year's JSC meeting.
Thank you very much for taking the time, it is very much appreciated!
Heidrun
On 21.10.2013 19:11, JOHN C ATTIG wrote:
The discussions have not yet taken place; the documents being announced are
proposals and forma
Isn't that perhaps a case of RDA 2.5.6 "Designation of a Named Revision
of an Edition", i.e. could it be the updated edition of the first edition?
If so, then I think the solution would be "First edition, updated
edition", because 2.5.6 comes after 2.5.2 according to D.1.1.
As far as I know, 2.
Mac said:
Benjamin said:
While I agree that the access point should not serve as a unique
identifier for systems, there is still the need for users to distinguish easily
between identically-named entities in an index.
It seems to me Benjamin is *very* right about this. Too much of our
discu
But there is another problem connected with AAPs in the form text
strings: An AAP which is unique with respect to authority file A does
not necessarily have to be unique with respect to authority file B as well.
AAPs may work reasonably well as long as data stays within the bounds of
one commu
Kevin said:
I agree about being sure we don't let current practices limit our design for the future.
But if data is going to be tagged as being RDA, then it needs to conform to RDA
'Äsguidelines--which means that if authorized access points are being used, they need to
be made unique. That'
Working my way through the rules for nobility and royalty, there was one
more thing which bothered me.
For kings, etc., RDA 9.4.1.4.1 calls for recording the title and the
name of the state in a language preferred by the agency. This fits in
with the principle of using a well-established form
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American practice
will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate field (046)
rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the 100$a does not
need to be unique because other data
th.
It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2
for specific instructions on recording as part of an access point.
Steve McDonald
steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
-Original Messag
records at authorities.loc.gov
<http://authorities.loc.gov>, so I am unsure.
-Arthur Liu
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
<mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
Stephen,
As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you
record
Stephen,
As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a
separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both.
It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2
for specific instructions on recording as part of an
I find it difficult to reconcile the following two RDA instructions
concerning titles of nobility:
9.4.1.3 (Recording Titles of Persons) says: "Record titles as separate
elements, as parts of access points, or as both." This also refers to
titles of nobility (9.4.1.5). So 9.4.1.3 seems to allo
Adger Williams wrote:
Actually, since these are collective titles for collections of works,
I am not quite sure to what kind of entity Bernard's link would
point. It wouldn't be to a single work record; it could be to some
kind of collective entity or to a position in a genre/form index or to
sion paper on the treatment of subjects:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#6ala-discussion2.
This was welcomed in the German response:
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-Discussion-2-DNB-response.pdf
Heidrun
On 07.10.2013 17:41, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
Elhanan,
The German-speaking community is still preparing for the implementation
of RDA, and many decisions have yet to be made. So I cannot tell you for
certain how we're going to do it.
But we have a strong tradition of recording information about e.g.
carrier in coded form. For display, t
)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 06:49
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.
Trying to follow this thread (which is a rather difficult one for
somebody not cataloging in MARC), it occured to me that it touches upon
something which has puzzled me for some time.
Kevin wrote:
"Nature" is called: Smith, John. Poems. Selections
"The Sea" is called: Smith,
Mac said:
steven Arakawa posted:
I understand that work titles can conflict and we would need to break
the conflict in such cases ...
Only if neither has an author main entry (or author as part of AAP as
Kevin would say). Of course two different works should not have the
same preferred title
I said (with respect to information about an imprint):
I can think of at least three possible ways in which such an
information can appear in the resources:
#1: a statement like "X, an imprint of Y"
#2: "X" on the title page, with an additional information, e.g. on the
verso of the title page
I had hoped for many answers to Alison's interesting question, but they
don't seem to be forthcoming. So here are my 5 cents (Euro cents, as it
were):
In my opinion, the scope of 2.8.4.1 doesn't rule out transcribing the
complete statement. Have a look at AACR2 1.4D2: The rule there was, as
w
Adam wrote:
I recently taught at RDA at the National Library of Israel. They do
not have a single preferred script, nor a single language of
cataloging. In fact they have four: Hebrew, Arabic, roman, and
Cyrillic. Depending on the script of the resource they are
cataloging, they will use a
John,
As I understand it, 8.4 is under "general guidelines" and is about "recording"
names. It doesn't say whether they are in a statement of responsibility or a preferred name or
access point or whatever.
Now this discussion is getting really interesting...
Disagreeing with you makes me f
Steve said:
I believe it is the difference between "recording the name" and "recording
the preferred name". The General Guidelines on Recording Names (RDA 8.5)
makes it clear that it is talking about recording the name as it appears in the
item. On the other hand, RDA 8.6 talks of recording th
I'm rather unsure about the relationship between the general rule for
names found in a non-preferred script in chapter 8 and the corresponding
more specific rules for persons and corporates bodies in chapters 9 and 11.
The general rule in 8.4 says: "Record names in the language and script
in w
uch folly though.
Michael Mitchell
Technical Services Librarian
Brazosport College
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wies
Lynn wrote:
Is there a reason we can't do something like this for graphic novels and the
like:
1 volume of illustrations ; some color or 138 pages of illustrations ; some
color
I haven't gone through the RDA rules in depth like many of you, but 3.4.12.1
says to give the number of units and/
Mac said:
I would consider architectural drawings to be plans, not maps,
regardless of scale. Maps usually depict the earth's surface. There
are also maps of the moon, and of fictitious places, etc.
Yes, but not all architectural drawings are plans (e.g. if the drawing
shows the front of a
Greta said:
I thought that if we decided something was a still image rather than
text, that we were required to use the list of still image carriers
for the extent at RDA 3.4.4.2. In that case, neither pages nor volume
are in that list, so i think you are stuck with 300 photographs.
Good poi
Francis,
I believe RDA could be altered to make a clearer distinction between extent of
carrier and extent of content. The proposal for an Extent of Expression element
is one of the key components of a discussion paper (on machine-actionable data)
to be brought before JSC later this year:
htt
Kathie wrote:
I brought up this very issue last month in a thread titled "Volumes containing only
images." I only received one reply. (From Mac, pragmatic as always.) I'm not sure if
URLs work to link threads in this format, but it is here:
https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?
Francis,
If a resource consists wholly or predominantly of image content, then this content is no
longer illustrative. That is, the images *are the primary content* in such a resource, so
they no longer fulfill RDA's definition of illustrative content: "Content designed
to illustrate the prim
ng exact numbers of
illustrations, but we put them in four categories: We distinguish just
"ill." for one or several illustrations, "numerous ill.", "predominantly
ill." or "only ill.". I found this a quite useful rule and would be
sorry to see it gon
I find it really difficult to understand what is meant by some of the
terms for the various kinds of illustrations in 7.15 (in German
cataloging, we only distinguish four kinds of illustrations). The German
RDA translation isn't much help either.
So, could anybody help with my questions?
1. c
Gary,
The rules which you need can be found in 1.9.2 (Supplied date). Under
1.9.2.4 (Probable range of years) there are examples like this:
[between 1800 and 1899?]
[between 1400 and 1600?]
In 2.8.6.6, there is a reference to 1.9.2.
Heidrun
On 13.08.2013 21:19, Gary Oliver wrote:
I have
Beth,
I cannot help with the MARC coding, but I can try and explain 0.6.1:
My colleagues and I are confused by the two subpoints (a and b)
outlined in 0.6.1 which refer to choosing to apply various levels of
description and/or detail. Do those options only apply when including
“other specific
Marie-Chantal said:
Perhaps the solution is to give rare/older materials cataloguers the
possibility to record phrases such as « published by » as an optional addition
... Otherwise, the general instruction could simply ask cataloguers to record
the name of the publisher, distributer, etc. ..
Mac said:
It does not matter to me, or patrons I suspect, whether one uses
$c[19]61. $c[1961] or $c1961. It *is* important that the whole year
be there, since one should not have to wait for a note to know whether
it is 1761, 1861, or 1961. A little pragmatism is in order here! To
transcr
.pdf
I also heartily agree that the whole structure of appendix A, which
takes English as the "model language" and covers all other languages
only to the degree in which they differ from the model, is
counterproductive for an international application of RDA.
Heidrun
--
--
Mac said:
My reaction is, why is this phrase included, when function is covered
by 264 2nd indicators?
My understanding is that transcribing things like "Distributed by ..."
is all about the so-called principle of representation: "The data
describing a resource should reflect the resource's
Marie-Chantal,
I would give "1961", without using any square brackets.
My reasoning goes as follows: You do not have to supply the date,
because in fact you know the year. The only problem is that it is
written on the source of information in some kind of shorthand. But when
you think about i
k
Franciscan University
j...@franciscan.edu <mailto:j...@franciscan.edu>
>>> Heidrun Wiesenmüller 8/8/2013 5:54
AM >>>
It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g.
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sol
o be part of ISBD, so where it
came from, I don't know.
Kevin Roe
Supervisor, Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
Fort Wayne IN 46802
*From:* Heidrun Wiesenmüller
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2013 5:54 AM
*Subject:* [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g.
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman
I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly
not mentioned among the elements where the first word must a
e-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 07:26
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other title
information or s
n.arak...@yale.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:33 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences a
cess [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg
*Sent:* Monday, August 05, 2013 1:46 PM
*To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Names of conferences as title proper, other
title information or statement of responsiblity
I meant area of responsibilit
g wrote:
I meant area of responsibility. The 245 line would read [title] / |c
[name of conference]
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
<mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
Gene,
Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the a
Gene,
Without seeing the actual item, I would place it in the area of resp.
Sorry, that was too much shorthand for a non-native speaker:
Does "resp" here mean the same as "depends"? If so, on what - the layout?
If you want to have a closer look, here's a scan of the title page:
https://docs.g
ollowed by statement of
responsibility with a personal name and did not make the personal name
the main entry or preferred entry.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
<mailto:wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>> wrote:
I'm rather unsure about what th
And what about "writer of afterword", while we're at it?
I've just have such a case in front of me: A novel, where the translator
has also provided notes and the said afterword. It gives information
about the author and her work. What is here presented as an afterword
might, in other cases, ju
I'm rather unsure about what the title and statement of responsibility
area should look like if there is both a formal name of the conference
and a specific title of a conference on the preferred source of information.
Let's consider the following example (which I've translated from German
to
Mac,
Heidrun said:
I don't think we'll end up with made-up titles, though. It wouldn't be
in accordance with our cataloging tradition ...
How is it possible to catalogue without made up titles? How would you
catalogue realia for example?
I'm sorry, I meant "in this case". The German RAK ru
Mac said:
RDA gives the option, in the absence of a collective title, of
creating one (with the contents in a note), or of using the titles of
the contents. I strongly urge EURIG to have a policy statement to
always supply a title for the sake of consistency in describing the
same resource; oth
Thomas Brenndorfer said:
In 2.4.1.6, multiple statements of responsibility are linked to the "corresponding
title, edition, or series information."
RDA D.1.2.2 prescribes semicolons to separate these statement of responsibility
elements.
So once the individual titles proper are recorded for
C-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
[wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de]
Sent: July-27-13 5:54 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA 2.3.2.9 Resource lacking a collective title
Could anybody please explain to me the second part of 2.3.2.9 "Resource
lacking a collecti
Could anybody please explain to me the second part of 2.3.2.9 "Resource
lacking a collective title"? I'm quite at a loss here.
"If the sources of information identifying the individual parts are
being treated as a collective source of information for the resource as
a whole (see 2.1.2), record
Kevin M Randall wrote:
If the resource is one in which pages are read left to right, then I would probably take
the one on the left-hand side as the preferred source. But seeing as the sequence of the
two pages is probably arbitrary, I would not object to someone just deciding that
"none of
1 - 100 of 316 matches
Mail list logo
