Adam:
I think this is a good suggestion for moving forward, even though I
firmly believe that text-based citation should be the last choice,
and only when more direct links are impossible.
It mystifies me why there seems to be so much resistance to the idea
of providing direct links to either
Kevin M. Randall said:
>The linking fields are there for the purpose of creating notes and linking
>related records.
The authors of RDA seem to me to be thinking in terms of FRBR, linking
in particular, when writing the provisions under discussion. If you
have a link to a record, you presumably
At 04:34 PM 7/25/2006, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>I don't think 780 and 785 are access points.
They are access points in every catalogue for which we prepare MARC
records. Why else have them? If one just wanted a note, wouldn't one
use 5XX?
While some systems (or implementations of some system
Some of these linking field citations do NOT make good access points,
because of the way they are constructed and coded all in one MARC
subfield, witness the following linking fields for translations of
journals:
780 00 $t Radiotekhnika i elektronika. English. Radio engineering and
electronics
>I don't think 780 and 785 are access points.
They are access points in every catalogue for which we prepare MARC
records. Why else have them? If one just wanted a note, wouldn't one
use 5XX?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Catalo
At 02:11 PM 7/25/2006, Mac Elrod wrote:
Rennette Davis said:
>6.10.1.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the
>preceding resource? Wouldn't that be a latest entry record?
We do this now via 780 (to speak in MARC). The difficulty is that if
a collection lacks one segment o
I very much like the alternative at 6.4.1.2.1c.2 to record the elements of
the original resouce in parallel with the corresponding elements for the
reproduction and have been trying to think about how this might be extended
to other types of relationships, as we were asked to do in the cover lett
A few more comments on RDA draft 6.10.
6.10.1.1.2 - List includes "resources that are superseded by another
resource". "Superseded by" is a pre-AACR2 term. Is it coming back now?
6.10.1.2.1a.3 - How would this look? This section is for recording the
earlier titles on the record for the later
Rennette Davis said:
>6.10.1.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the
>preceding resource? Wouldn't that be a latest entry record?
We do this now via 780 (to speak in MARC). The difficulty is that if
a collection lacks one segment of a serial which has had several title
ch
John Hostage wrote:
Our rules for omitting initial articles are based on the limitations of
our 20th-century systems. I don't think RDA is or should be concerned
with such MARC implementation issues. We librarians have gotten used to
it, but there are many titles that look odd without the in
I am trying to visualize what embedded descriptions would look like and how
they would function in RDA records. It looks to me like an embedded
description is a note, from the examples in 6.1.5.0.1 and 6.2.1.2.1c.1 and
6.2.2.2.1c.1 and 6.3.1.2.1c.1 and 6.4.1.2.1c.1 and 6.4.2.2.1c.1.
The example
At 04:33 PM 7/24/2006, Gordon, Antony wrote:
I think (and hope) that Rich's wish will not be fulfilled because
for printed and recorded music in the Western tradition the reverse
is most definitely the case. Music publishing has been
international and multilingual in scope for centuries so UTs
13 matches
Mail list logo