Johnathan Rockind said:
>This seems like a perfectly reasonable and good solution to me,
>On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
> I think from our discussion on this matter is that RDA needs
>another >> element to record what I will call the "linking word or
>term" in the title.
How does this differ from the MARC solution of:
245$aTitle$i.or,$bAlternate title?
As others have pointed out, this will require a change in ISBD to make
both the linking word and althernate title another element. But it
seems a far better solution to me than "coding", which may or may not
translate to what was on the title page for display.
Keeping our several standards in tandem is a major problem. I find it
easiest to begin with MARC, in part because MARC field tags make a
handy shorthand as opposed to the obtuse language of RDA.
Karen Coyle said:
>Some people seem to be wanting to *describe* by >*transcribing*,
>others are concerned about *access*.
In the days of card catalogues, the title main entry, or indented
title below main entry, served successfully as both description and
access. With MARC (from the mid to late sixties), 245$a has served
successfully as both description and access. Why mess with success by
complicating matters? (The 245$a title element has been far more
successful in this dual role the the 440 series element.)
Data is 245$b has been less successfully indexed because of the lack
of a filing indicator for initial articles, and other connecting
words. The creation of a 245$i subfield would solve that problem
nicely. (Some solve it in formatted 505 by $g$t.)
Sometimes the simplist solution is the best solution.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
