@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
That would be a naughty designator rather than an inappropriate one!
It's way before Friday for humor, isn't it? ;0)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Kevin M Randall wrote:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:29:48 +
From: Kevin M
Lynnne LaBare said:
I have the MARC Code List for Relators and Mac's Special Libraries
Cataloging list from an email dated 8/29/2103.
You might wish to print it out again from the MRIs our website. Based
on Mark's helpful post, I added more terms Tuesday:
Thank you, Mac. I know many of us
appreciate what you are doing to make RDA "cataloger friendly."
Lynne
J. LaBare
Lynne LaBare asked
:
245 10 |a Natural History Museum book of animal records : ?b thousands
of amazing facts and unbelievable feats / |c Mark Carwardine.
710 2 |a Natural History Museum (London, England), |e issuing body (?)
Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac)
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b.
The 264 field appears as:
264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly Books, |c 2013.
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access
point)
: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lynne LaBare, Senior
Librarian/Cataloger
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:08 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
J. McRee
!
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lynne LaBare, Senior
Librarian/Cataloger
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:08 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Lynne asked:
In this case, do I simply add the corporate name heading (access point)
without any relationship designator even though the Natural History
Museum holds the copyright ...
Kevin advises no relationship designator if none applies, Another
poster has advised that if no exact term
: wagst...@illinois.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate
Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com wrote:
Is it correct to state that I can use contributor (20.2.1.3) or
creator (I.2.1) when a *specific* MRI for an entity does not exist that
reflects the entity's relationship to the bibliographical content of the
work?
If
Lynne,
If there isn't a good match, just don't record a relationship designator.
Or if you can determine that a new designator is needed and what that
would be, submit one for the JSC to consider (via the web form on the PCC
website if you are a PCC library, or to the Cataloging Committee:
2013 13:07:47 -0600
From: Lynne LaBare, Senior Librarian/Cataloger lyn...@provolibrary.com
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Yes, if the Museum is 264 1 $b.
The 264 field appears as:
264 1 |a Buffalo, N.Y. :|b Firefly
/ Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Appropriate Relationship Designator
Like one that would be used for a particular work by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I
suppose?
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description
13 matches
Mail list logo
