Kevin said:
I agree about being sure we don't let current practices limit our design for the future.
But if data is going to be tagged as being RDA, then it needs to conform to RDA
'Äsguidelines--which means that if authorized access points are being used, they need to
be made unique. That'
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
> It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need
> for unique access points.
>
>
> Yes, and that needs to be the goal. Too often we limit designing for the
> future because of current practices. My comment was in reference to the
: Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:00 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Kevin wrote:
It's when we're able to rely on identifiers that we can let go of the need for
unique access points.
Yes, and that needs to be the goal. Too often we limit designi
evin M Randall
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:50 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
> I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American
> practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a s
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
> I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American
> practice will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate
> field (046) rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the
> 100$a does not need to be unique because other d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 17.10.2013 15:50, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller:
> Charles, Thomas and Richard,
> The connection between a title record and a person record is not created by
> the
> use of a text string (AAP). Instead, the records are directly linked by
> record
Mary Mastraccio wrote:
I hope that rather than changing your practice, the Anglo-American practice
will change to your practice--as in having the dates in a separate field (046)
rather than using a subfield $d. It has been suggested that the 100$a does not
need to be unique because other data
drun Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:51 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
Charles, Thomas and Richard,
This has been very helpful. Many thanks for your ideas!
In fact, I had been mainly thinking of authority data.
I find Richard's
ty Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.L
mail: richard.mo...@bl.uk
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: 16 October 2013 20:54
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Titles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 17.10.2013 00:02, schrieb Charles Croissant:
> The instruction at 9.4.1.3 is an exact parallel to the instruction at
> 9.3.1.3, so I think you can apply the same line of reasoning in both
> instances. There will be times when we record a person's
The instruction at 9.4.1.3 is an exact parallel to the instruction at
9.3.1.3, so I think you can apply the same line of reasoning in both
instances. There will be times when we record a person's dates or title as
a separate data element, times when we record dates or titles as parts of
access poin
Good point. Thanks for pointing me to the exceptions.
But I agree it's not clear whether in these cases you'd want to record
the title at all.
Heidrun
Arthur Liu wrote:
This is just a guess, but could examples of the first case include the
exceptions listed under 9.19.1.2? If the titles or
This is just a guess, but could examples of the first case include the
exceptions listed under 9.19.1.2? If the titles or designations in those
exceptions are not added to the access point, then perhaps they could be
included as other elements (e.g. 368) in an authority record. However, the
three e
Stephen,
As I see it, 9.4.1.3 is simply saying that sometimes you record it as a
separate element, sometimes as part of an access point, and sometimes as both.
It isn't saying you always have a choice about it. It directs you to 9.19.1.2
for specific instructions on recording as part of an
alf Of Heidrun
> Wiesenmüller
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:36 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] Titles of nobility
>
> I find it difficult to reconcile the following two RDA instructions concerning
> titles of nobility:
>
> 9.4.1.3 (Recording T
I find it difficult to reconcile the following two RDA instructions
concerning titles of nobility:
9.4.1.3 (Recording Titles of Persons) says: "Record titles as separate
elements, as parts of access points, or as both." This also refers to
titles of nobility (9.4.1.5). So 9.4.1.3 seems to allo
17 matches
Mail list logo
