>From a patron's point of view, but probably not according to the rules,
would be Revised first edition, or First edition, revised.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202
P Please consider whether it is necessa
Welcome back.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202
P Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@L
It is a long time since I was first learning to catalog and not sure if the
rules in this area have changed. I do not often add 240's to records I create
locally, and don't change many in records downloaded from other sources.
That being said, my understanding of 240's to give a title that hist
We are keeping/adding the GMD. Both the GMD and, where available, the
3xx fields display.
For patrons - I think the GMD is more visible and understandable. If
there is a results list, the GMD will display, though the 3xx fields
will not be available until the patron gets to the full record.
We have established a decision here to add titles, degrees,
certifications, etc., as a means for patrons to judge the reliability of
the authors. We are not, however going to add what I refer to as their
'current job titles/place of employment'.
Kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services
Very interesting. I have been in favor of continuing to document why a
person has an added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship
designator, that those notes could become unnecessary.
In the past, sometimes those notes were needed due to the 'rule of
three' which prohibited listin
I will admit I am not sure what the rules are, but I would put the multiple $e
designators in the 100 field, rather than having the same author with two
entries, in the 100 and again in the 700.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
4
Just a comment.
In the old days, a book might have a copyright date, with a second date listed
on the book. Was it a new publication or a reprint? The instruction at that
time was that if it was made with the same 'plates' it was considered to be a
reprint. Sometimes the books had the same co
I agree. I think if the publication and copyright dates are different, it is
desirable to add both.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texas City, TX 77539
409 933 8202
Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.
-Original
I made a typo when I first sent this out, I did mean to have the 264 with
publication date of [2013] (though I guess it should be [2013?], since it does
not appear anywhere on the book itself,
Since I have the book in hand, I would consider that to mean that is was
published this year (or ear
The book I have in hand lists a copyright date of 2014.
Should the 264 be:
264 1 ...$c [2013]
264 4 4a @2014
Or
264 1 $c [2014]
No 264 4
I am leaning toward the second, since many libraries may receive this book in
2014, and the first option might be confusing, since they would not k
I was going to suggest that is it unmediated, like a book. However,
this email refers to "You don't need anything other than the object
itself" While the playaway device is considered the device the material
is recorded on, does it automatically include the headphones? Would a
library require th
OK. I have had only occasional access to the RDA Toolkit and had not had an
opportunity to delve deeply into RDA, and therefore was unaware of the
complexities involved in the Author/title rules and searching.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librarian
College of the Mainland
Texa
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Goldfarb, Kathie wrote:
I would interpret " first named person as part of the authorized access points
for the work " as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person,
but not necessarily as main entry. In fact, other than for clas
I would interpret " first named person as part of the authorized access points
for the work " as referring to the existence of a 1xx OR 7xx for that person,
but not necessarily as main entry. In fact, other than for classification
purposes, I do not believe the Main entry really has that much s
I have been reading the discussions that there are too many relationship
designators, differences between types of editors, etc.
However, reading through this list - is there a relationship designator for the
person who wrote the foreword? The book in hand is: Thorton Wilder, a life
... fore
When AACR2 Authority records are converted to RDA Authorities, will there be a
place I can find a list of those that have new 1xx fields? I will really only
need those for which the authorized heading changed, the other changes to the
record will be less important to our library, and can be loa
Can't we use the 246 to provide access and information from those alternate
title sources, front or back cover, half title page? Nothing is permanent in
the life of a book, but the title page is probably the most reliable of them
all.
kathie
Kathleen Goldfarb
Technical Services Librari
18 matches
Mail list logo