RDA-L readers,
In my earlier post I deliberately began with please assume for the sake of
argument. That is because I realised that some readers would find it hard to
accept the RDA formulation, encoded with ISBD punctuation, on account of its
wordiness plus the likelihood that some headway
In Appendix D, ISBD punctuation.
When adjacent elements within one area are to be enclosed in square
brackets, enclose each in its own set of square brackets.
EXAMPLE
[London] : [Phipps], [1870]
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Ian Fairclough
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:55 AM
Subject: [RDA-L] Use of square brackets for supplied imprint statements
Dear RDA-L readers,
In the following, please assume for the sake of argument
that no information is available whatsoever.
It is my understanding
Ian Fairdlough posted:
in RDA, the instructions provide for:=0A[Place of publication not
identified] : [publisher not identified], [date of publication not
identified]
We would never create such a record, and would change any derived
record with this 264. Googling and clicking on contact us
Mac Elrod wrote:
Ian Fairdlough posted:
in RDA, the instructions provide for:=0A[Place of publication not
identified] : [publisher not identified], [date of publication not
identified]
We would never create such a record, and would change any derived
record with this 264. Googling
Kevin Randall said:
But usually can still mean a significant number of exceptions.
Yes, but as you indicate further on, at least country can usually be
guessed. For example, there are enough differences in American,
British, Canadian, and Australian language usage to provide clues. A
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:36 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Use of square brackets for supplied imprint
statements
Kevin Randall said:
But usually can still mean a significant number
Alex Kyrios asked:
How many patrons know what [s.n.] means, though?
A Google search can tell them if they do not.
Definitions seen by hovering would be a good OPAC feature,
certainly better than dumbing down records with too long phrases.
Back to the original question: publisher should be
8 matches
Mail list logo
