J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> I said:
>
>>We need a $e term and $4 code for contributor.
>
> Could someone with the appropriate skills and connections propose the
> addition of "contributor" to RDA relationship terms ...
It's already in RDA: see 20.2. It's just not explicitly listed in RDA
Appendix I.
Michael Borries wrote:
> At this point is it considered necessary in fields 336-338 to use both
> subfield $a with the term spelled out and also subfield $b with the code, or
> is subfield $a with the term spelled out sufficient? I seem to see both
> usages in various records and instructions.
I
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Todaka said:
>
>>We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns selected
>>from the Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point
>>for Science Scope in 730 field.
>
> The recently added $4prv Provider seems right to me. If the journal
> also pu
I don't see a reply to this post, so I'll give it a go.
Joan Wang wrote:
> Is there a note order requirement in RDA?
Nope. At least, not in the main body of RDA.
> I searched RDA Toolkit and found
> Order of Elements in Appendix D.1 ISBD Presentation (LC PCC PS). There is an
> element listing
I have a question regarding the new instruction 16.2.2.11 on overseas
territories, dependencies, etc. that is included in 6JSC/ALA/19/Sec final
(online at http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-ALA-19-Sec-final.pdf).
Does this instruction change the way that the access points for the
British Crown d
Deborah:
See 6.27.4.1
Construct additional variant access points if considered important for
access.
Fast, Howard, 1914-2003. Sylvia
Authorized access point for the work: Cunningham, E. V., 1914-2003.
Sylvia.
Novel originally published under the pseudonym E.V. Cunningham; authors
real name
I am probably just missing it, but I cannot find the RDA instruction that
tells us to make a Variant Access Point using the other name used in
association with a work; i.e., where does it say *in RDA* to make the 400,
in the Authority Record example that Adam sent:
-
A real life exampl
John Hostage said:
>The MARC formats allow the encoding of metadata according to various
>standards, but I think if you are creating an RDA record you would
>use the RDA vocabularies.
Library and Archives Canada (LAC) has said that they intend to use $4
MARC relator codes, as opposed to $e RDA re
Alex -I believe the working address is lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.caKarenFrom: "Simons, Alex" To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:17 AM Subject: [RDA-L] Signoff for RDA-L
This is the message I received:
The ISBD content types only seem to be shorter than the RDA content types in
6.9 because in ISBD you have to add a qualifier after the term, while in RDA
the information is integrated into the term.
The PDF file referenced in the email has been superseded by the consolidated
edition of the ISBD
This is the message I received:
[cid:image001.jpg@01CE158C.008983E0]
<>
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Santos Muñoz,
> Ricardo
> Sent: February-28-13 6:56 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Multiple identities named on s
Yesterday I discussed with a fellow reference librarian, who couldn't
understand the logic behind separating different bibliographic identities for a
single person. She couldn't see how disgregating the work of an author might
help the user in any way.
As a matter of fact, I don't see it eithe
13 matches
Mail list logo
