Re: [RDA-L] Fwd: Re: [Re: ] RDA and MARC

16.02.2011 23:32, Diane I. Hillmann: I'm just as frustrated as you are (maybe more, given the state of limbo in which the vocabularies seem to be at the moment), but all I can say is that the four of us are pushing as hard as we can, and maybe y'all could spend more of your energies pushing at t

Re: [RDA-L] RDA and MARC

Karen Coyle said: >What I am finding in the 0XX's is that very often an indicator >actually turns the field in to more than one data element -- The worst is, I think, 008, in which a code in LDR/06 changes the meaning of most positions. This would be at the top of my list for change if MARC w

Re: [RDA-L] RDA and MARC

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net] Sent: February-16-11 11:47 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA and MARC >What I am f

[RDA-L] Fwd: Re: [Re: ] RDA and MARC

Realized belatedly that this conversation might better be happening on other lists. Diane Original Message Subject:Re: [Re: ] RDA and MARC Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:26:18 -0500 From: Diane I. Hillmann To: MARC CC: Bernhard Eversberg Bernhard, A lit

Re: [RDA-L] rdacontent terms - dataset

___ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brunella Longo [brunella.lo...@yahoo.com] Sent: February-16-11 1:48 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] rdacontent terms

Re: [RDA-L] rdacontent terms - dataset

Thank you all for the excellent answers showing how complex is the achievement of a very basic level of interoperability (definitions). I have found particularly useful to compare rdacontent terms with ISBD designations. I must admit I find easier to think about rdacontent terms in a non-amb

Re: [RDA-L] New ideas for 260

I do not see a conflict between either statement. Mark posits a relationship that is not automatically direct. Mac offers examples of how the potential relationships are not automatically direct and how they can vary with respect to which other date the copyright date is related. The nebulosity

Re: [RDA-L] New ideas for 260

J. McRee Elrod wrote: > >My assumption is that copyright dates in RDA have a related but not > directly > >linked association with production, publication, distribution and > >manufacture. > > But copyright date may differ from any of those dates, just as it may > differfrom publication date. Ne

Re: [RDA-L] New ideas for 260

Mark Ehlert said: >My assumption is that copyright dates in RDA have a related but not directly >linked association with production, publication, distribution and >manufacture. But copyright date may differ from any of those dates, just as it may differfrom publication date. New releases, reprin

Re: [RDA-L] New ideas for 260

J. McRee Elrod wrote: > Why no subfield for > copyright date in this proposal? > My assumption is that copyright dates in RDA have a related but not directly linked association with production, publication, distribution and manufacture. -- Mar

[RDA-L] New ideas for 260

http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-dp01.html This discussion paper addresses whether to have new subfields added to 260, have repeating 260s with indicators, or have new 26X fields, to accommodate RDA elements. When repeating 260 was first introduced to MARC21, in contradiction to AACR2, our

Re: [RDA-L] RDA and MARC

Great analysis, Thomas -- I'm amazed at how many of the MARC fields map to two or more RDA fields, but as I haven't gotten past 088 in my own analysis, it's hard to understand the WHY of that. What I am finding in the 0XX's is that very often an indicator actually turns the field in to more

Re: [RDA-L] Use of MARC in ILSs

Bernhard said: >The misunderstanding here is the same that led to the internal >use of MARC in ILSs in the first place. That was never really >necessary, nor intended by the creators of MARC, for MARC was meant to >be a communication format. So long as the ILS can *export* MARC. Over the last t

Re: [RDA-L] RDA and MARC internationally

Am 15.02.2011 16:37, schrieb J. McRee Elrod: ... the insularity of our discussions amaze me. Where is the rest of the cataloguing world? The official cataloguing code in some countries is brief AACR2 translated into their language. RDA would have to be translated into English, before it can b

Re: [RDA-L] rdacontent terms - dataset

Bernhard Eversberg wrote: 15.02.2011 20:48, Weinheimer Jim: > > In my opinion (and not only mine), this is the world we must enter, > whether we want to or not. How do you enter this world? By creating > Web Services. In order just to start to do this, you must use XML, > since this is the languag

Re: [RDA-L] rdacontent terms - dataset

Quoting Bernhard Eversberg : The misunderstanding here is the same that led to the internal use of MARC in ILSs in the first place. That was never really necessary, nor intended by the creators of MARC, for MARC was meant to be a communication format. In modern parlance, a service format, only t