.
-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: 25 May 2013 18:31
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Ford,
RDA
.
-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: 25 May 2013 18:31
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Ford,
RDA
Gene,
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of
inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?)
Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we
want to go there?
I'm not sure I get your meaning. I believe RDA _does_ indeed
] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Gene,
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of
inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?)
Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we
want to go there?
I'm not sure I get your
-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about examples in 2.5.6.3
Gene,
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of
inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?)
Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we
want to go
I look at A.5 about the capitalization of edition statement. It says to
capitalize the first word or abbreviation of the first word in a
designation edition. It also refers to 2.5.2. It does not indicate 2.5.6
Designation of a Named Revision of an Edition. So I assume that we do not
have to
I agree with Joan. The rules about capitalization are in appendix A, and
A.5 only tells us to capitalize the element designation of edition,
but not the element designation of a named revision of an edition
(which, personally, I find a rather odd element, by the way). I think
there is simply a
If the example *World's classics ed., New ed. rev*. appears under 2.5.1.4
Recording Edition Statement. It really should not include the designations
of a named revision. Go too far!
Thanks,
Joan Wang
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:08 AM, John Hostage host...@law.harvard.eduwrote:
There is also
John Hostage wrote:
There is also this example in 2.5.1.4:
World's classics ed., New ed. rev.
Oddly, this example is almost identical to one in 2.5.6.3
(Recordingdesignations of a named revision of an edition):
new edition, revised, reset, and illustrated
Designation of edition: World's
Great! Heidrun.
These examples should be reexamined.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de wrote:
John Hostage wrote:
There is also this example in 2.5.1.4:
World's classics ed., New ed. rev.
Oddly, this example is
You know, can we just record what is actually in the item, instead of
inventing things (note phrase cited above. Who writes like that?)
Inventions of what things should be go back to pre-AACR2 rules. Do we want
to go there?
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Joan Wang
11 matches
Mail list logo
