I've just joined this list and I did it so that I can ask this question.
Please take a look at OCLC record #840606230, if you would. This book is
conference proceedings, and has two statements of responsibility, one for a
compiler (i.e. editor of compilation) and one for 20 authors, which has
Mac: That is helpful. I did not ask about whether the statement of
responsibility representing the contributors of component works should be
recorded in the 245 $c, but I can see the argument against that.
But I am still left wondering whether a plain 700 author added entry is
allowable unde
LC-PCC PS for 25.1, cf. this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg08543.html
Heidrun
On 23.11.2013 02:36, Wilson, Pete wrote:
I’ve just joined this list and I did it so that I can ask this question.
Please take a look at OCLC record #840606230, if you would. This b
Here's what I hope is a quick question. Say you're cataloging an exhibition
catalog that is legitimately entered under corporate body--e.g., a museum. The
museum put on the exhibit, published the catalog and owns all the art involved.
What is the appropriate relationship designator for the 10
Thanks, Mac. Sorry, I obviously meant 110, not 100. And I was not thinking of
single-artist exhibitions. Multiple-artist exhibitions often are entered under
corporate body, in the circumstances I mentioned.")
The designation "issuing body" is not listed in RDA as associated with the
creator
I think "creator" is ugly librarianspeak as a relationship designator. On the
other hand, I don't think a corporate body qualifies for most people's idea of
what an "author" can be. I have no particularly logical defense of my
suggestion of "corporate author" as an RD, but my gut tells me it
Adam--Can you give any examples of NACO authority records that have qualifiers
like your "Best of X's poetry?" I have been unable to turn any up and am
curious. Thanks.
Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description an
eady adding an additional qualifier to
distinguish them. Now we are doing it for all works.
The second example probably should not have subfield $s preceding the
parenthetical qualifier.
Adam Schiff
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Wilson, Pete wrote:
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:44:25 +
> Fro
8 matches
Mail list logo