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/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________