Re: [RDA-L] Bibliography and index

2010-09-06 Thread J. McRee Elrod
As I mentioned, RDA has: > Includes index. > Bibliography: pages 859-910. But most of us follow LC in using: > 504 $aIncludes bibliograhic references (p. 859-910) and index. Mark pointed out that the LC instructions for the RDA test period indicate that the combined note is to be used. If we

Re: [RDA-L] Bibliography and index

2010-09-06 Thread Kelleher, Martin
d Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert Sent: 05 September 2010 06:56 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Bibliography and index J. McRee Elrod wrote: > RDA 7.16.1.1 (earlier draft) shows the examples: > > Includes index. > Bibliograph

Re: [RDA-L] Bibliography and index

2010-09-04 Thread Mark Ehlert
J. McRee Elrod wrote: > RDA 7.16.1.1 (earlier draft) shows the examples: > > Includes index. > Bibliography: pages 859-910. > > There is no indication of wording to use for footnotes, still "Includes > bibliographic references"? Wording isn't prescribed, nor is any reference(!) made to approaches

Re: [RDA-L] Bibliography and index

2010-09-04 Thread Gene Fieg
I was a reader for RDA and I remember reading the example you cite. LC used "Includes bibliographical references to cover all types of citations. I remember when I asked a cataloger back in the 80s about using the term "bibliography" for endnotes; to my mind then they were not bibliographies. We

[RDA-L] Bibliography and index

2010-09-04 Thread J. McRee Elrod
RDA 7.16.1.1 (earlier draft) shows the examples: Includes index. Bibliography: pages 859-910. There is no indication of wording to use for footnotes, still "Includes bibliographic references"? Will most of us be willing to give up the handy: 504 $aIncludes bibliograhic references (p. 859-910