The ISBD content types only seem to be shorter than the RDA content types in 6.9 because in ISBD you have to add a qualifier after the term, while in RDA the information is integrated into the term.
The PDF file referenced in the email has been superseded by the consolidated edition of the ISBD published in 2011. The vocabularies for ISBD area 0 have been made available at http://iflastandards.info/ns/isbd/ The MARC formats allow the encoding of metadata according to various standards, but I think if you are creating an RDA record you would use the RDA vocabularies. ------------------------------------------ John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge, MA 02138 host...@law.harvard.edu +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 01:50 > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: [RDA-L] ISBD Area 0 content terms > > MARC recently added $2isbdmeda as a source code, allow the use of > "electronic" rather than "computer" as a media term. > > MARC also added $2isbdcontent as a source code. You might like to take > a look at ISBD Area 0 content terms. They are shoter, easier to > understand, and better for display, than the RDA ones: > > http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/isbd/area-0_2009.pdf >
