Yuji posted:
>I initially also thought that "contained in (work)" could be used in
>this situation. But the more I thought about it, the more confusing it
>became ...
Our clients have rejected 7XX$i even more strongly than 1XX/7XX $e,
perhaps because $i comes at the beginning of the field?
Hav
847) 491-2939
>>
>> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
>> > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Yuji Tosaka
>> > Sent:
> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Yuji Tosaka
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 10:03 AM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] relationship
I initially also thought that "contained in (work)" could be used in
this situation. But the more I thought about it, the more confusing it
became, since it seems that the compilation in question must be a
component part of the serial if the RDA relationship designator
"contained in (work)" can
J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Todaka said:
>
>>We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns selected
>>from the Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point
>>for Science Scope in 730 field.
>
> The recently added $4prv Provider seems right to me. If the journal
> also pu
Todaka said:
>We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns selected
>from the Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point
>for Science Scope in 730 field.
The recently added $4prv Provider seems right to me. If the journal
also published the collection, you could
We are working on an RDA record for a compilation of columns selected from the
Science Scope journal. We wanted to provide an access point for Science Scope
in 730 field.
Here, columns are in whole-part relationships with the two aggregate works
[i.e., contained in (work)/contains (work)], but
7 matches
Mail list logo