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
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
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
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 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
5 matches
Mail list logo