Re: [RDA-L] Use of subfield $b in 336, 337, 338

2013-02-28 Thread M. E.
Michael Borries michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu wrote: At this point is it considered necessary in fields 336-338 to use both subfield $a with the term spelled out and also subfield $b with the code, or is subfield $a with the term spelled out sufficient? I seem to see both usages in various

[RDA-L] Use of subfield $b in 336, 337, 338

2013-02-25 Thread Michael Borries
Dear collective wisdom, My apologies, because I believe this has been asked and answered before, but I cannot find the relevant emails. At this point is it considered necessary in fields 336-338 to use both subfield $a with the term spelled out and also subfield $b with the code, or is

Re: [RDA-L] Use of subfield $b in 336, 337, 338

2013-02-25 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Michael Borries asked: At this point is it considered necessary in fields 336-338 to use both subf= ield $a with the term spelled out and also subfield $b with the code ... SLC considers having both to be redundant. We will use $aterms in 336-338, but $4codes for relators. That's a tad

Re: [RDA-L] Use of subfield $b in 336, 337, 338

2013-02-25 Thread Adam L. Schiff
If you are using OCLC Connexion, there is a macro to supply these fields and it supplies both the term and code in $a and $b. So that is one reason you are seeing both in many records. LC's policy for its catalogers (see DCM B.13.13.2) is to record the term in $a, but if $b is present in