[RDA-L] Abridgements

I am not at all clear about how to treat abridgements under RDA. Looking at AACR2 21.9, which is the rule dealing with headings for abridgements, I am directed to RDA 6.27.1.5, which is for adaptations and revisions. The rule in RDA essentially follows that in AACR2, but abridgements are not

[RDA-L] (OCoLC)863164120

I have just added #863164120 to OCLC (and I have not done the corresponding authority work yet). Since this book represents a somewhat unusual situation (at least for me), I would be happy to have any feedback. The book is a bilingual text. The English text is, in my opinion, an abridgement

[RDA-L] 765 note again ((not-quite-so) hypothetical)

Please forgive the duplication, but I think this question is relevant to all three lists. It seems to be the consensus that under RDA, when one has a translation, one should not only indicate this in terms of the preferred title (130 or 240), but also by the addition of a 765 field, in MARC.

Re: [RDA-L] alternative titles and variant access points

What is the effect on filing and display in the OPAC? Despite all promises made at the beginnings of computerization over 40 years ago, the sort in computer systems has never, in my opinion, been as good as the card catalog, organized according to the LC filing rules. Only once, at an ALA

[RDA-L] FW: [RDA-L] 700$a$t replacing 240?

: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu -Original Message- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 1:13 PM To: Michael Borries Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 700$a$t replacing 240? Michael Borries said: So in an author search, how are these 700's

[RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry

I have in hand the fourth edition of Facilities management handbook. I have the edition from Routledge. (OCoLC) 244653136 is an AACR2 record for the Butterworth-Heinemann edition. (You can also search by ISBN: 9780750689779.) The cover says edited by Frank Booty; the title page leaves out

Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry

, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: I have in hand the fourth edition of Facilities management handbook. I have the edition from Routledge. (OCoLC) 244653136

Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry

write parts of the book, they would be authors. On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edumailto:michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: Why do you think page xx means editors and not authors? I see nothing there to suggest this. Michael S. Borries Cataloger, City

Re: [RDA-L] Question on responsibility and preferred entry

of Facilities Management and a contributor to, and editor of, other market-leading titles, books and web sites in the fields of business, IT and networking. Hopefully it helps. Thanks, Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Michael Borries michael.borr

Re: [RDA-L] 775 again

: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:24 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 775 again Michael Borries said: I have a photomechanical reprint of W.P

[RDA-L] 775 again

I have a photomechanical reprint of W.P. Robins Etching craft in hand. The facsimile of the title page has been altered so that the original publication information does not appear (in fact, the publication information of the reproduction also appears nowhere, but this appears to have been

Re: [RDA-L] Question re: 776 for Custom Editions, which are excerpts/adapted from full textbooks

Having dealt with a number of these in the past (although I haven’t done any using RDA), I would say that generally these are excerpts, although you should check to see what any front matter says. Often the pagination is not changed, but sections are dropped, so that pagination may not be

Re: [RDA-L] Bible. New Testament. Syriac. Peshitta--relationship designator for text prepared by?

I think editor would be just fine. I would be inclined to catalog this as a set, and I think Kiraz's name is the only one you need to trace - most people will not remember the other editors and translators. If there is another name that is found on every volume, you could trace that as well.

[RDA-L] Edition statements

I have in hand the Second print of a title. The first printing had 77 pages (according to the bib record; 78 according to Amazon, 81 according to Barnes Noble). The Second print has 124 pages, and apparently the same dimensions (at least, the height is the same). I would like to add an

Re: [RDA-L] Edition statements

. 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 -Original Message- From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:40 PM To: Michael Borries Subject: Re

Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points

I can see that an argument can be made for using the relationship designator as the justification for the added entry. One problem in the past has been that relationship designators have been more unstable (likely to disappear) than information in the body of the description. Also, there are

[RDA-L] Active dates

I remember seeing all kinds of emails about replacing fl. with active, but when I look at the instructions in RDA 9.3.4 and 9.3.1, I don't find any instructions to use the word active, or any other word, except approximately. If one reads the instructions as they stand, it would seem that all

[RDA-L] Two questions

Dear collective wisdom, I and another cataloger here at CUNY Central Office have two questions regarding creating personal name authority records using RDA: 1. The more theoretical question. In fields 372 and 374 (field of activity and occupation), the instructions in RDA give very generic

Re: [RDA-L] Revised printing

I would have to check the piece itself to be sure, but I would suppose that revised printing date meant that there had been revisions, even if these do not appear to be obvious. In that case, I would create a new record. If I am the reader, I want to know if there are differences between the

Re: [RDA-L] 336 repeated for illustrations?

In addition to what others have said, I use an additional 336 for catalogs in which the illustrative matter forms the principal part of the work. I suspect that any time the 300 field indicates that a work consists chiefly of illustrations, then an additional 336 for still images would be

Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date

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

[RDA-L] Question about edition statements

A quick question. RDA 2.5.2.2 states that the sources of information for an edition statement are: 1. the same source as the title proper 2. another source within the resource itself 3. one of the other sources of information specified under 2.2.4 Under 2.2.4 we find that the sources of

Re: [RDA-L] Typos in Titles

I wish to comment on several aspects of this thread. First, I would respectfully disagree with Joan Wang's statement below. I do not find RDA to be more explicit when it comes to mistakes in title (or in any other transcribed field), but rather less explicit. There are two or three sources of

[RDA-L] (OCoLC)829311087

I come to the collective wisdom looking for guidance. I have cataloged this record according to RDA standards (I hope!). What troubles me is the 710 for Polaroid Collections. I have no idea what to use for the subfield $e except perhaps contributor, and that doesn't seem correct. The term

[RDA-L] Use of subfield $b in 336, 337, 338

Dear collective wisdom, My apologies, because I believe this has been asked and answered before, but I cannot find the relevant emails. 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

Re: [RDA-L] Fw: What Goes into the 1xx Field?

Before you decide that MARC cannot accommodate the concept of authorized access point, look at the definition of all the subfields in 1XX. This is not to be taken as a defense of MARC, merely as a reminder, as Mac does from time to time, that MARC has not always been well utilized. Michael S.

Re: [RDA-L] Simultaneous publication in more than one language

So if the South African author wrote the book in Afrikaans and it's published simultaneously in Afrikaans and English, the uniform title is in Afrikaans. There is no way of knowing which was written first, if the author is bilingual. We certainly aren't going to assign Polish uniform titles

Re: [RDA-L] Kits

I am behind in my email, and so someone else may already have made this point, but to answer Thomas's question below, an archive could also have multiple 33X fields, but would not be described as a kit. Kit, at least to me, implies some sort of interaction. Even if an archive contained a

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

In terms of films vs. texts, we can think of Shakespeare. The texts of his plays are entered under his name, but filmed productions are entered under title. In the case of adaptations of novels for the screen, there is a screenwriter involved, as well, so these productions are not the work

Re: [RDA-L] Harvesting data

I sent a message to Amazon that while the cover for Architecture now! v. 3 was shown, when one tried to Look inside, one was shown the contents for the first volume. The message I received was: We have determined that no change needs to be made to the product image you have specified. However,

Recording place of publication

My apologies for not having responded earlier. John Marr prefers not to use the term home office and would rather use most explicit data. But this wouldn't have worked well for the ta Neues book (I forget the title) -- all the addresses were explicit, except for Kempen. But Kempen was part of