John Myers listed earlier rule changes: >The changes incumbent with respect to: 1. >- form of entry for pseudonyms, 2. >- form of entry of corporate bodies, 3. >- editors as main entry, and 4. >- corporate bodies as main entry >were substantial. 1. Yes, moving Clemens to Twain was a major one, and very welcome. I hope RDA brings us Chilton and Dalai Lama.
2. Changes in form of entry for corporate bodies was largely unnoticed in my experience. I suspect the removal of O.T. and N.T. will be as little noticed. 3. The departure from scholarly practice in not using compilers as main entry *was* noticed, and unfortunately, RDA continues that mistake. 4. The reduction in corporate main entries went largely unnoticed as well, with the exception of the inconsistency for law reform commission reports. Supposedly, main entry remained by the commission only if official recommendations were included, but changed to personal author or title if informational. Inconsistencies resulted in legal collections, due to failure to grasp this distinction. Most felt law reform commission reports were law reform commission reports. >The rule of three is an intellectual and pragmatic construct on the >part >of catalogers that I maintain very few users care about or for. You may be right. A former 700 would now becomes 100, as with the reverse change in corporate main entry you noted, a 110 became a 710. The change in Cutter was all most noticed. The major problem that 110/710 change raised was when there was no 245/$c, and 260$b said something like "The Office", due to Lubetsky's dislike of redundancy. (The deconstruction if the ISBD display in many OPACs makes Lubetsky's concern moot, as it does the silly bit about a full stop introducing the following field.) Through all these changes, however, titles were in sentence capitalization. (Have you noticed that in pre green book records, corporate bodies in imprints were sentence capitalization?) I suspect one thing which *will* be noticed is that there would be a mix of capitalizations in hitlists. Apart from the difficulty in reading (which has been noted on list), wouldn't patrons expect that all caps difference to *mean* something, such as on order, missing, electronic, or on reserve? It does not even necessarily indicate all caps in the resource. Reference librarians should have fun explaining that one. We will not accept it. I suspect, due to unjustified added entries, patrons will notice getting a record with no indication in the record of why that search key produced that record. (Searches on the Web have the found phrase highlighted). This ranks as a greater change than I have ever experienced, and a major departure from basic cataloguing best practice. Margaret Mann would be appalled. We will not accept that either. Mac (who began with the green and red books) __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________