Following the Amigos RDA @ Your Library electronic conference, I was
asked these questions off list. Am I correct, particularly in no, 17?
Thanks, Mac
1. Which personal author cases that were main access points (100s) in
AACR2 are not in RDA?
None. But LOTS of 100s in RDA not in AACR2, e.g., first mentioned of
more than three.
Ditto first country mentioned for a treaty is 110, regardless of
number. Unless it is a treaty between one country and a group of
countries, in which case it is the one country. This is one of the
few things I like about RDA.
2.Is is right that, for works of joint authorship, the main access
point (100) is the first named author even if there are more than
three?
Yes.
3.Dates: 1941- not b. 1941; -1968 not d. 1968; active 1965
not fl. 1965?
Yes, according to Library of Congress Policy Statements (LCPS).
RDA calls for "born", "died", and "flourished", which we can ignore in
view of the LCPS for the test period, which for the present I think we
can assume would continue with implementation.
4.Are the cases in which increased use of qualifiers such as
occupation spelled out in RDA?
Yes. And regardless of when the author lived. There would be fewer
undifferentiated authorities.
RDA calls for fullest form of name as opposed to name as found, with
more $q. Those forms are in 100 of RDA test records and 700 in
authorities. I'm hoping for superimpositon with established forms
left unchanged, and the 700 becoming a 400. The fuller form should be
used only as practice for new authorities, with established form used
if in the NAF, I think.
5.Which works entered under corporate name according to AACR2 would
not now be the main access point (110)?
No change. But treaties under title would now be first country as
110.
6.Is RDA really prescribing "Annual ." etc., at the beginning of a
conference name to be included? If so, is there a reference from the
name of the conference without "Annual ." etc.?
Yes, all words included. Yes, there should be a reference. I think
there should be the exception for serial record minus the "Annual",
but know know if RDA mentions that.
7.Is this right according to RDA?
Bible
Bible. Old Testament
Bible. Ruth
Bible. New Testament
Bible. Mark
Yes.
8. What is a "preferred title" in the context of uniform titles?
"preferred title" is newspeak for "uniform title". The author plus
preferred title is the entry for a work.
9. Is this right according to RDA?
Works
Works. Selections
Poems
Poems. Selections
Yes. "Selections" not used alone.
And are these not enclosed by brackets?
As 240 they would be displayed in brackets, but as now, not keyed.
10. What is the RDA prescription for a publication with a uniform
title that is in more than one language? It was [Endymion. English
& Spanish] or [Endymion. Polyglot].
Only one language in 240, and no "Polyglot"; 240 first language,
700$a$t$l for additional languages.
11. What does RDA do if there are ellipses in the title? E.g., "And
so it goes ..."
Transcribed as found.
12. Does RDA correct errors without adding "sic" or just record as
is? As in: Nixno [Nixon] speaks or Nixno speaks
Transcribed as found. Corrected in a 246 $i note/added entry.
13. What is the RDA rule on GMDs? Do they have one or have GMDs been
abolished?
GMDs are replaced by 336-338, content, media type, and carrier; 337 is
optional. ISBD Area 0 has "electronic" for media type rather than
"computer" which the MRI should suggest IMNSHO.
RDA allows either repeating fields or reating $a if more than one term
applies. I think we should standardize on repeating $a.
We plan to export [336 : 338] as 245$h, e.g., [text : online resource]
rather than [electronic resource]. The other option might be
displaying above all other data, as suggested by ISBD Area 0. RDA
says nothing about display, but after collation is too late.
14. RDA does not specify that added entries must be justified?
True. RDA not only does not specify a relation between transcription
and added entries (because of the relationship designators, which not
being applied?), but also specifies no minimum number of authors to be
transcribed in 245$c, nor traced. I suggest a minimum of three for
transcription in 245$cc, 508, and 511 and trancing if present, plus
505 as desired.
15. Are all edition statements given as found according to RDA? As in
Second edition
Revised and augmented edition
New issue
Yes; "rev.", "ed.", etc. would only be transcribed as such if in the
item. If at the end of 250, "ed.." would have two periods. We are
not going to do that.
16. What are the RDA rules replacing "s.n." and "s.l."? My intention
is to call for continuing usage of these and other ISBD abbreviations.
OK?
S.l. would be [Place of publications not identified]; [s.n.] would be
[Publisher not identified]. We will continue ISBD abbreviations. We
can't send a French item to a Quebec library with English inclusions,
nor a Spanish item to a French/German Geneva library with English
inclusions. Those long phrases are not only bad for use in hand held
electronic devices, but don't work internationally.
17. Does "publisher as found" mean, e.g., From the publishing house
of Arthur Smith Walter W. Plunger & Sons
Just the name I think: Arthur Smith Walter W. Plunger & Sons. But if
the P and H of "publishing house" were upper case, I assume all would
be given.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
