On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Armin Stephan wrote:
snip
The work Genesis is the work genesis. I see no need for any
qualifier at all.
(AACR cataloguers use to qualify everything. German cataloging tradition
shows, that it is possible to use less qualifiers.)
/snip
I would just like to
The work Genesis is the work genesis. I see no need for any
qualifier at all.
(AACR cataloguers use to qualify everything. German cataloging tradition
shows, that it is possible to use less qualifiers.)
Am 10.05.2011 21:01, schrieb Adam L. Schiff:
Mac wrote:
Just Genesis is a faith
From: J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: May-10-11 12:36 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
Thomas said:
It would make sense then for religious works to follow the same pattern, which
would mean
This discussion about biblical or apocryphal works seems unbelievable to me.
The AACR cataloging tradition concerning these works is an anachronism.
It was invited many, many years ago for card catalogs. All parts of the
Bible should be found at one place in the card catalog. (I know this
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 5:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Apocrypha - make a proposal!
It's frustrating to see all of the griping about RDA instructions like the ones
dealing with Apocrypha, which will lead nowhere
I'd like to respond to a number of the issues that are raised by Mike's
comments below. I cannot speak for all of the members of the Joint
Steering Committee, but I can talk about how ALA approaches both this
specific issue and the more general issues of RDA revision.
On 5/10/2011 9:23 AM,
Concerning the changes to the Apocrypha, I wish the powers of modern
computing could be employed to solve these matters. At its basis, I
don't think that this issue is any different from any other authorized
point: there is the conceptual consideration that everyone can more or
less agree on:
this issue.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Armin Stephan
Sent: May 10, 2011 4:31 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
Armin Stephan said:
In electronical systems it's no longer necessary to produce such
unpractical monsters of authority names.
While I think you make good points, there is the browse feature in
some OPACs. Our law firm clients were upset by Insurance subject
headings being uninverted. There
Thomas said:
It would make sense then for religious works to follow the same pattern, wh=
ich would mean the Preferred Title for Genesis could be
Genesis instead of Bible. Genesis
Very true. How nice to agree with Thomas for a change. It is
Christian bias which has Bible. Genesis as opposed
RDA should be delayed because it didn't change AACR2 _enough_ for your
tastes, because it left some AACR2 practices intact that you think
should be changed? That's not a reason to delay a standard. That's
ridiculous. If you wait until RDA is perfect in the judgement of
everyone involved, it
Jonathan said:
RDA should be delayed because it didn't change AACR2 _enough_ for your
tastes, because it left some AACR2 practices intact that you think
should be changed?
Yes. If RDA is to be an improvement on AACR2, it is not too much to
ask that it be so.
Otherwise, why the trouble and
Just Genesis is a faith neutral compromise.
Ah, yes it might very well be. But since that title conflicts with other
works that have the same title, if you are using an authorized access
point you will need to qualify it.
Genesis (Septuagent)?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
I have already responded to this question.
The rule is badly written in RDA. It should state the rule deals with the
books of the canon that Protestants and Catholics hold in common.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Elissa Patadal epata...@macu.edu wrote:
Mark,
With all due respect, I
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:03
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
Mark,
With all due respect, I have never heard of several of the books that you
mentioned as part of the Apocrypha. My Catholic Study Bible lists only Sirach,
Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit
It's frustrating to see all of the griping about RDA instructions like the
ones dealing with Apocrypha, which will lead nowhere unless someone
actually makes a revision proposal. If there is a problem that needs
fixing, the way to get it fixed is to ask one of the JSC constituent
bodies to
The issue of Apocrypha titles has been discussed in the RDA historical
documents:
In particular,
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8.pdf
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8-alaresp.pdf
List of documents at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-8
The original proposal included removing O.T.
na...@uflib.ufl.edu
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 6:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
The issue
18 matches
Mail list logo
