Or, to be safe, you could say [between 2008 and 2013]
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:30 PM, J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
Chris Fox asked:
Do I infer date of production based on the performance date (2008),
or when I think the disc was actually created (2013)?
If you decide on 2013,
Forgive my ignorance. I have just seen mention of Lchelp4rda in two differnent postings today. Is it a list-serv that I could subscribe to? If so, how does one subscribe? Or is it simply an e-mail address where I could ask a question?
Thanks
Dawn Grattino Senior Cataloger Catalog Department
I think that it is an email address to ask questions.
Questions about RDA and LC's RDA plans may be directed to *LChelp4rda*@
loc.gov
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Dawn Grattino dawn.gratt...@cpl.org wrote:
Forgive my ignorance. I have just seen
When a resource has parallel statements of responsibility on its chief source
of information, but only the connecting words are parallel, not the names
themselves, how does one treat this under RDA?
E.g., what I see on the t.p.:
Mit Beiträgen von/With contributions by ...
hg. von/ed. by ...
Ben,
I think the / should indeed be replaced by a = according to 1.7.3,
as it obviously is a case of parallel statements of responsibility (i.e.
two different RDA elements). But I'd find it odd to have only Mit
Beiträgen von as one of these statements of responsibility. As this is
only an
I agree with Heidrun that you could apply 1.7.7 Letters or Words Intended to
Be Read More Than Once
If a letter or word appears only once but the design of the source of
information makes it clear that it is intended to be read more than once,
repeat the letter or word.
Notice that this
It makes sense, but it's actually the outcome I was hoping to avoid as this
also happens to be a t.p. with an extensive list of contributors (over 80 of
them) on the t.p. (And yes, the abbreviations are on the source.)
So it would end up looking like this:
Mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar
RDA-L readers,
Mac Elrod said: SLC agrees with the various guidelines (LC, PCC) that one
should use the single year in 008 and 26X as on the item. We consider the book
to be published when the publisher said it was, and the item received before
January to be an early release, common for
I occasionally read the proposed revision. According to the document, a
jacket will be added to preferred sources of information for resources
consisting of pages, leaves, sheets, or cards.
The change results in a revision of the second paragraph of *2.3.1.1 *as
suggested:* *
*More than** **one
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Adoption of RDA in Various Countries
A special issue of Cataloging and Classification Quarterly will be devoted to
the adoption of RDA in various countries. Previously, issues 7-8 of volume 49,
titled RDA Testing: Lessons Learned and Challenges Revealed, related the
I'm afraid so, only I think it should start with mit instead of Mit
(mit being a preposition which is not ordinarily capitalized).
What a lovely example - I'm thrilled ;-)
If you really were to transcribe all the 89 names (not once, but twice),
I wonder whether there might be technical
No parallel title, just the s-o-r's. And certainly the mit should not be
capitalized (and isn't on the piece) that was my mistake.
I don't know if there's a character limit in OCLC or not. But there is a
character limit to my brain, so I'm going to use the optional omission. :)
Thanks,
Ben
Hm, now I'm getting confused.
2.4.2.4 applies to a statement of responsibility relating to title proper
[that] appears on the source of information in more than one language.
But the scope statement to 2.4.3 defines parallel statement of responsibility
as a statement of responsibility relating
Joan Wang said:
I try to understand the sentence. Does it collocate =93sources of
information=94, and =93a jacket, sleeve, container, etc., or material
accompanying the resources=94?
Since RDA allows providing information from outside the resource, I
think it matters little (beyond the use of
Actually, before going to the [rules] list I should bring it up with John A.
Kathy first. But first let me know if it’s something you’d be willing to take
on or if we need to find someone else to spearhead it.
Peter
My apologies to the list. This was meant to be a private message to Robert
Rendall, discussing whether or not CC:DA will take up the issue of the
Apocrypha. I had several e-mails up and replied to the wrong one.
Peter
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
And a related question for those of us in Anglophone countries : would it
be
mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [and 88 others]
or
mit Beiträgen von Fernando Aguiar [und 88 andere]
?
*Geoffrey Hooker *
http://geoffreyhookermls.blogspot.com/
*It is dangerous to be right when the government is
In this case, and despite the complexities it has raised, I do think statements
in both languages should be recorded. Because, while the title is English, the
book itself is bilingual (not German and English in parallel, but actually just
some German and some English. It's mainly poetry and
As I just said: It's really not well presented. But now I see that it's
even worse than I thought.
I still believe that 2.4.2.4 is all about deciding which statement(s)
is/are the normal ones, when you're confronted with statements in
different languages. Once you've managed that, you can go
I think that the abridgment is a cataloger's decision. So it should be in
the cataloging language, the language of the bibliographic record being
created. Is that right?
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Geoffrey Hooker hook...@gmail.com wrote:
And a
Taking both rules into account, I think what it's saying is to identify the
statement of responsibility for the title proper when there are statements of
resp. in multiple languages by choosing the statement of responsibility in the
same language as the title proper. The remaining statements of
Ian Fairclough ifairclough43...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have been wondering how and why this situation concerning publication in
a year yet to come arose, and why LCPCCPS was written the way it is.
Perhaps the situation developed from an attempt in LCPCCPS to make RDA
easier to use while
Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote:
When a resource has parallel statements of responsibility on its chief
source of information, but only the connecting words are parallel, not
the names themselves, how does one treat this under RDA?
Monkeywrench.
An example from ISBD
Mark,
now that's an interesting point (I had to look up monkeywrench, though).
The particular rule in the ISBD you mentioned seems to refer to a
special situation: When it is not possible to give an appropriate
statement of responsibility after each title or other title information,
the
I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating publication date
and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least, from this phenomenon of
having books published earlier than the copyright date indicates. I am
sympathetic to the concern that a cataloger with the book in hand in
25 matches
Mail list logo
