Thomas said:
>RDA 5.3 says to record additional elements to differentiate identical
?titles of works.
In real life, I suspect most will add data to make titles unique only
for title main entries, and for author/title subject and added entries
for works in the *very* rare case of two works by the same author
having the same title proper. Otherwise, I suspect most will ignore
identical titles proper; they are very common. The access point with
an author can be unique, even if the title alone is not. The PS seems
to me to support that supposition, referring as it does to access
point rather than preferred title.
>But when they are created, the policy is to follow RDA 5.3 to
>differentiate works by creating unique authorized access points for
>works.
I assume the reason you want an 046 date is that the 264$c applies to
the manifestation rather than the work? The MARC21 definitions of 046
subfields seem also to apply to manifestations. Since all we now
have are manifestation records, our clients are quite happy with
differences in the description making that differentiation. While
some use is made of 008 dates one and two, I am aware of none of our
clients making use of 046 in their ILS.
How would the data you suggest adding to fields other than 245 become
part of an access point? 046 for example?
>The RDA records are much simpler, much cleaner, and far easier to
>understand than the MARC records.
For you perhaps.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
