John said:
>The first edition of Understanding employment law on LCCN 2007026152
>had Bales named first. The 2nd ed. on LCCN 2013004371 had Bales
>named 3rd, so the authorized access point for the work still consists
>of his authorized access point in the 100 plus the title in the 245.
>This is a change from AACR2 practice.
This RDA idiocy had so far escaped my attention. Under which AACR2
rule should this go in the MRIs?
I suspect some of our clients would bounce this back to us as an
error, particularly if they don't own the earlier edition, and thus
have no clue what's going on. What if the author of the first edition
is dead, as is often the case with law books in their umpteenth
edition?
How will this work in Bibframe, where the later edition is a new work?
How does an edition statement of responsibility relate to this? Are
we back to putting Smith's Torts, 15th ed. by Tom Jones, under Smith
as main entry? That was an earlier pre AACR2 revision practice.
We are going to have to give some thought whether we will follow this
rule or not. It would not go over well.
Thanks for the explication John.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
