J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> John Attig said:
>
>>In this case, there is an LC Policy Statement that says that the
>>Parallel Title Proper is core for LC.
>
> On the other hand, CONSER would have parallel title recorded in 246
> rather than 245 =$b. We record it in both 245 =$b and 246, but remove
> i
John Attig said:
>In this case, there is an LC Policy Statement that says that the
>Parallel Title Proper is core for LC.
On the other hand, CONSER would have parallel title recorded in 246
rather than 245 =$b. We record it in both 245 =$b and 246, but remove
it from 245 on export for one cl
Local or cooperative group policy? But limiting their transcription is, I
think, a disservice to users. They should be able to retrieve a work by
any parallel title that they happen to know.
Adam
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washingt
>Beyond the core elements, I would assume that anything is optional -- or at
>least subject to an application decision at some level.
Hmmm. Thanks for the clarification, John. I think my records for the test just
got a lot shorter.
Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of
The Parallel Title Proper is not a core element. Therefore, I would say
that the recording of some or all of them is an application decision
that needs to be made. This application decision can be made through a
national decision, an institutional decision, or by individual catalogers.
In th
It seems to me that the assumption here that the textual guidance
(rules) are the place for these kinds of decisions, and that they should
necessarily apply to everyone is something we should be looking closely
at. In fact, if we're no longer thinking of catalog cards as our
preferred 'format
And, since the parallel titles proper can be taken from anywhere on the
resource, I can imagine this being an occasional problem with the publications
of international bodies. Maybe there will be an amendment or LCPS revision
following testing if enough people catalog UN publications.
-Ori
On the topic of data formats for dates, it looks like MARC authority records in
the RDA test are also carrying the RDA date elements in ISO 8601 format as the
default in 046 subfields:
RDA Test authority record for Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772-1834 has:
046 __ |f 17721020 |g 18340725
100 1_ |
Steven Arakawa wrote:
> Is there no cataloger option to limit the number of parallel titles proper
> to transcribe?
No, there is none--probably goes against the principle of
representation or some such. The LCPS on parallel titles proper
merely turns the thing into a core element, with no limita
Is there no cataloger option to limit the number of parallel titles proper to
transcribe?
Steven Arakawa
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240
(203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu
Karen Coyle schrieb:
... RDA purports to be "format neutral" but in fact it is "format
hostile" because it forces certain displays (the famed "p." v.
> "pages") that not only do not acknowledge that the data should be
> meaningfully encoded for machine processing, but the use of language
> te
Quoting Mike Tribby :
How does open-ended instruction on just how to note birth and death
dates achieve the interchangeability and all-important granularity
that RDA is purported to advance?
Cataloging rules do not achieve interchangeability, no matter how
precise and no matter how much
12 matches
Mail list logo
