I suggested that one already to JSC, but not sure what the status of it is. I
think they asked Music Library Association to consider it.
Adam
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
From: Robert Maxwell
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:44 PM
To:
Many thanks for the examples.
Now I see what sort of records would require two modes of issuance. I
suppose cases like these are not very frequent, though.
Heidrun
On 19.05.2013 23:22, JSC Secretary wrote:
Other possibilities:
-- a description for a monograph that is updated by an annual
Hi all,
I have a question concerning the use of brackets and supplied information in
RDA records. I know that according to RDA 2.2.4, if you take information from
outside the resource, you can enclose that information in square brackets, but
what if the information is on the resource but is
If you are following the instructions under 19.2.1.1.1 to determine that the
publisher is also the creator, and the publisher name comes from the resource
itself in accordance with 19.1.1, I don't believe that you need square brackets.
Cathy Crum posted:
We catalog numerous publications from state government agencies in which we=
only have a statement of responsibility in the imprint area,
If there is no imprint, then the cataloguer supplied the publisher; it
should be in brackets IMNSHO. While the document may have been
Hello,
Is there an RDA equivalent to AACR2's Cf. in note fields? Everything I
see in RDA that talks about indicating the source where you've taken
information from, is for situations where one has quoted directly from the
source, and as such, a page number (--Page ii.) for example, or Preface
I've sent this message to both MOUG-L and RDA-L. Apologies for the duplication
to those who subscribe to both.
Can anyone provide further guidance on whether/when to use 260 or 264 (or
both?). (Apologies if this is obvious to everyone but me.)
Both are listed in LC/MARC/Bibliographic as
I've sent this message to both MOUG-L and RDA-L. Apologies for the duplication
to those who subscribe to both.
Can anyone provide further guidance on whether/when to use 260 or 264 (or
both?). (Apologies if this is obvious to everyone but me.)
Both are listed in LC/MARC/Bibliographic as
19.1.1 tells you the source of information when you are recording
relationships (access points) for persons, families, and corporate bodies
associated with a work, so I'm afraid that doesn't help us here.
The source of information instructions for recording a corporate body as
either a
Joseph, the 264 field is the RDA equivalent to the 260 field of AACR2
cataloging. My understanding is that if you are cataloging a record using
RDA, and have coded your record as an RDA record, that you should use the
264 field. It seems the 264 did not yet exist when the Library of
Congress
Dana Van Meter posted:
Is there an RDA equivalent to AACR2's Cf.
If not giving source of a quotation (e.g.--Dust jacket), but
recording source of information outside the resource, we use 588.
I suspect Cf. would have to be Compare or See if used in RDA?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
Deborah, with whom until recently I always agreed, said:
If you decide a statement is a responsibility statement (often based on
layout) then remember that we do not 'guess' a publisher; we didn't under
AACR, and we still don't, under RDA. So you would enter the corporate body
as statement of
Can anyone provide further guidance on whether/when to use 260 or 264
(or both?).
We use 260 in AACR2 records, 264 in RDA records. PCC advises no 260
in new RDA records (although test records have it). The reverse (no
264 in AACR2 records) seems a logical correlary.
In exporting RDA records as
I would never assume any claim of protection under copyright if an explicit
statement about copyright does not appear on the resource. Our bibliographic
descriptions are exactly that: bibliographic DESCRIPTIONS. There may be some
agencies that might require specific copyright information
14 matches
Mail list logo
