Mac wrote:
>What I have not been able to determine, is that in a collection by
>different people, I assume main entry is still title. One would not
>use the author of the first work included as main entry would one?
In the Dec. 2008 draft of RDA, the choice of the authorized access point for
Gene Fieg said:
>I have read RDA in its draft forms. In re the author, et al., where does it
>say that we are not to include them all and make the first one the "primary"
>author?
That is what it says. But in doing a retrospective database walk,
there is no way to replace that "[et al.]" with th
I have read RDA in its draft forms. In re the author, et al., where does it
say that we are not to include them all and make the first one the "primary"
author?
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Daniel Paradis seems to have a better grasp of what is actually in
> RDA, and
Mac wrote:
>Daniel Paradis seems to have a better grasp of what is actually in
>RDA, and how it might be implemented, than most.
The fact that I had some insight to share about preferred titles does not mean
that I have a better grasp of RDA than anybody else on this list, especially
considering
Daniel Paradis seems to have a better grasp of what is actually in
RDA, and how it might be implemented, than most.
When/if RDA is implemented, i.e., we begin having RDA derived records
produced by national cataloguing agencies, we are considering doing a
database walk, making changes in existing
5 matches
Mail list logo
