Mark Ehlert said:
>First author as baseline comes from RDA; illustrators of children's
>books as required comes from the LCPS.
Since RDA's baseline is *far* too low, perhaps LCPS should have a
minimum number of authors to be transcribed and traced if present
(three suggests itself for continuity), as well as a requirement for
correlation between transcription and tracing of authors. RDA allows
both transcription without tracing, and tracing without transcription.
!@#$%^&*!
Earlier we were speaking of the additional notes required by RDA
(typos, missing jurisdictions). I forgot Margaret Mann's title
clarification, e.g., "Fire [poems]". Yet another note?
For me and my house, we are at least transcribing and tracing up to
three authors if present, and supplying missing jurisdictions in
situ. 260 $aLondon, as opposed to 260 $aLondon [Ontario], does
patrons a very real disservice. Notes are rarely read.
We are still considering typos and title clarifications. RDA
represents a massive step backward in meeting the needs of our
clients. At this point FRBR is pie in the sky, and basic description
is being gutted.
RDA baseline records should *not* be coded as LDR/17 = blank for full
records. Perhaps PCC could specify a higher standard for full record
coding?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
