The Sources of Information for most, if not all (except the 'Preferred Names') information for Persons, Families and Corporate bodies is "Take information on dates associated with the person from any source".
So there is no problem with getting that kind of information from the dust jacket; which is a very good thing, as you point out. Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. <mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com> debo...@marcofquality.com <http://www.marcofquality.com> www.marcofquality.com From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Patrice Pearsall Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Dust jacket as a Source of Information Deborah, While I can understand some bias against the dust jacket since the blurb is publisher-created and inclined to make you think this is the best book ever; often the jacket is the only good source for author information and verification, so perhaps an exception could be made for this information. Patrice Pearsall Head of Technical Services Algonquin Area Public Library District Algonquin, IL 60102 On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Deborah Fritz <debo...@marcofquality.com> wrote: Under AACR there was an LCRI that basically said we were not to consider information coming from a dust jacket as coming from a prescribed source of information (presumably because it could get lost) A 'Quick Search' of RDA has not turned up any mention of a dust jacket (except in an example under 'Item' data), so I am wondering whether this bias against the dust jacket still remains. It is not listed at 2.2.2.2 (Resources Consisting of One or More Pages, Leaves, Sheets, or Cards (or Images of One or More Pages, Leaves, Sheets, or Cards); unless it is now to be considered a cover, even though it is not actually attached to the resource. It is also not listed at 2.4.2 (Other Sources of Information) not even in the LCPCCPS. I'm inclined to think of it like 'accompanying material' (2.2.4.a) and so treat it as an 'Other Source of Information'. Does anyone have any official word, or any thoughts on this? Thanks, Deborah - - - - - - - - Deborah Fritz TMQ, Inc. debo...@marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com
