Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <rochk...@jhu.edu>:
Which is why in an ideal world, if we care about whether the illustrations are colored or not (and I suspect the time is LONG gone when our patrons or we actually DO), there would be a data element in the record which marked, in a machine interpretable way, whether there are illustrations (checkmark HERE), and whether they are colored/coloured (checkmark THERE). Which could then be translated to the appropriate spelling or even language for the given audience.
I don't agree -- maybe so in an academic environment, but for other kinds of libraries (school and public, and maybe specials too) the presence of illustrations can be a significant element in making a choice of the possibilities. The LCRI for AACR2 which enjoins just "illus." for all kinds of illustrative material doesn't help!
In reality, though, as important is to know how many illustrations there are (even approximately).
Likewise, for the content expressed as "Includes bibliographic references" and coded in the 008 fixed field, this is far less than the user wants to know. The extent of pages (in a printed or fixed-format document) may help or may be misleading. What would be useful to know would be the number of resources referenced.
I don't think RDA has addressed these. Hal Cain Melbourne, Victoria hec...@dml.vic.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
