Will we be including relator codes or terms in author/title added
entries, e.g.,
700 12 $aJones, Jim.$4aut$tPaper title.
or
00 12 $aJones, Jim,$eauthor$tPaper title.
Why or why not?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP:/
Nancy Braman said:
>It's not really in interview format; the narrative flows as if Mr.
>Young had had no assistance at all. It just doesn't feel like
>interviews.
True. I was joking a bit, although I suspect questions were asked,
suggestions were made, and narrative was edited by the "int
Heidrun posted:
>The creators are given as:
>Victoria and Albert Museum
>Peabody Essex Museum
>
>Now, I don't have a problem with the fact that the museums are seen as
>creators. But I don't understand why there is no third creator, namely
>the personal author Amin Jaffer. Shouldn't this also be
Monica Boyer posted:
>So you want the
>Perfect dog.
>Start Here.
We would code as:
245 10 $aSo you want the perfect dog. :$bstart here /$c ... .
We would omit the period since in ISBD punctuation, the period makes
"Start here" appear to be a part of the larger work.
Most ISBD punctuation, used
Deborah Lee posted:
>I am struggling to think of the appropriate relationship designator to desc=
>ribe the relationship that the conference has to the book "based on" that c=
>onference.
The RDA terms are richer for individuals than for bodies.
If the conference published the book, "issuing b
Maybe "facilator"?
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Michael Borries <
michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu> wrote:
> Maybe “emanator”?
>
> ** **
>
> Michael S. Borries
>
> Cataloger, City University of New York
>
> 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
>
> New York, NY 10010
>
> Phone: (
Maybe "emanator"?
Michael S. Borries
Cataloger, City University of New York
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (646) 312-1687
Email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]
Daniel,
great, thanks! Somehow I never think to look in chapter six.
The first exception in 6.27.1.3 is indeed just what I needed. So, I can
now safely assume that the personal authors of such museum catalogs
could and should be seen as creators alongside the museum(s).
Thanks also for the a
Forget to say, your case may not be the thing I am talking about. Have to
look at the item.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Joan Wang wrote:
> Heidrun
>
> I think that the rule applies to other cases such as publications from a
> committee or
Heidrun
I think that the rule applies to other cases such as publications from a
committee or a church. It is usual to see publications that have committee
names as well as members. The example shown under the rule is about a music
group. But I feel that the rule itself does not indicate such a li
AS Bob Maxwell just stated, per RDA (and AACR2, of course) if you are
cataloging the proceedings of a named conference, the conference itself gets a
"creator"-type access point (aka "Main Entry"). So the relationship "author"
would technically work.
However I hope that some day they come up wi
Early on in the RDA process we consulted with the Library of Congress on
this issue and determined that there is no appropriate relationship
designation to describe the relationship between a conference and its
proceedings. "Host institution" and "Sponsoring body" are in the list
but are usuall
A meeting or event is a type of corporate body according to both AACR2 and RDA.
If the publication is the proceedings of the meeting/event the conference is
considered the creator. I've been using "author" as the relationship designator
in those cases. Corporate bodies (including events) can hav
Joan,
Thanks for your ideas.
Are these people are members of the corporate body? If they are, there
is an optional omission in RDA.
/If the members of a group, ensemble, company, etc., are named as well
as the name of the group, etc., omit the names of the members from the
statement of resp
I have had very little, very basic RDA experience so please forgive me if
this is a very simple question & answer.
This morning, I cataloged a book that seems to be from CreateSpace & which
was written by a local author. The title information on the title page
looked like this (ignoring any capit
Hello,
I am struggling to think of the appropriate relationship designator to describe
the relationship that the conference has to the book "based on" that
conference. I wondered if anyone had any ideas?
(I have considered "issuing body", as this is what we have used for works which
have eman
Hi Heidrun,
The relevant instruction is 6.27.1.3. The first exception "Corporate bodies as
creators" addresses cases where "one or more corporate bodies and one or more
persons or families are collaboratively responsible for creating a work that
falls into one or more of the categories at 19.2.
Are these people are members of the corporate body? If they are, there is
an optional omission in RDA.
*If the members of a group, ensemble, company, etc., are named as well as
the name of the group, etc., omit the names of the members from the
statement of responsibility.
*
I also find this in t
To all who responded, thank you very much. (And no, I'm not quoting
the whole digest at the end.)
Bernadette and Heidrun:
I'll probably go with author. An author's note explains that Mr.
Young had made two previous attempts on his own, but they were
unsatisfactory. His editor then suggested bri
19 matches
Mail list logo
