I agree, but there's no reason why it can't be an optional note.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yossi Galron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
>
> I don't think adding the source is adding much to the bibliographic
> information (if at all).
> I wouldn't mandate it, but if a cataloger wants to add it - it should be
> done in a note and not in the 260 field.
>
>
> At 12:07 PM 7/19/2005, you wrote:
> I like this idea! And I'm quite willing to transcribe the whole
chronogram
> in a note--my only question is whether the SOURCE of the chronogram ("Ps.
> 92:12" or the like)--not the CONTENT of the chronogram, whether or not it
> refers to the content of the item or the author's name-- is
> bibliographically important enough to be required. If we say recording
the
> source is optional, I have no objection.
>
> Joan
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 11:52 AM >>>
> For complex chronograms in which only selected letters comprise the date,
> just supply a bracketed Hebrew date. The entire chronogram could then be
> transcribed (optionally) in a note.
>
> Lenore
>
>
