Don Charuk dcha...@torontopubliclibrary.ca wrote:
From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that
RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is
this a valid interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a
specific rule that states this
12:11 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance, in
hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is no
note to that effect.
Justifying it gives
to print this email.
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Meehan, Thomas
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:12 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Is anyone
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 9:11
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Is anyone aware of any research into whether patrons want the justification?
E.g., once a cataloguer has put “Smith, John, editor” how much do most patrons
want or need to see
:22 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Very interesting. I have been in favor of continuing to document why a person
has an added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship designator, that
those notes could become unnecessary.
In the past
Kathie said:
I have been in favor of continuing to document why a person has an
added entry, but I can see, if there is a relationship designator
...
The rationale for the RDA lack or correlation between statement of
responsibility transcription, or notes justifying added entries, was
the
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Goldfarb, Kathie
*Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 9:22 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
** **
Very interesting. I have been in favor of continuing to document why a
person has
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013 10:40 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of
justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while
others still see
Thank you for your responses. We are of split opinion of the non-requirement of
justification. some feel the relationship designators are sufficient while
others still see the need for notes.
Our opinion is also split on how to deal with compilations. Do we go with
structured notes and make
And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For instance,
in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one, but there is
no note to that effect.
Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English.
What is our goal here? Down and dirty? Or cataloging
] Justification of Acces Points
And not only justify entries, but also justify fixed fields. For
instance, in hand right now, the fixed field for Index has value of one,
but there is no note to that effect.
Justifying it gives information to the patron, in plain English.
What is our goal
From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that RDA no
longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is this a valid
interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a specific rule that
states this or is it implied? Thank you.
/ Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Don Charuk
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:04 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that RDA no
longer
-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Justification of Acces Points
From my readings and the reading other's comments it has been said that
RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points. Is
this a valid interpretation of people's comments? If, so is there a
specific rule that states
Don asked:
RDA no longer requires you to justify your additional access points.
Is this a valid interpretation ...
RDA requires no correlation between entries and transcription, so yes,
one may have added entries not included in the description. SLC very
much hopes this never happens. We find
15 matches
Mail list logo
