Renette Davis said:
>I definitely want linking entries for preceding and succeeding
>resources, to get the users from the existing record to the record
>for the preceding or succeeding resource. However, I don't think I
>want an access point on the existing record for the preceding or
>succeeding
Renette Davis wrote:
6.10.1.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the
preceding resource? Wouldn't that be a latest entry record?
[snip]
6.10.2.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the
succeeding resource? Wouldn't that be an earliest entry record?
I think there has been some confusion regarding access points and linking
entries. I think that an access point, like the existing term added entry,
is something in the record which gets you to that record. A linking entry
is something in the record which gets you to a related record.
I definit
tion and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Renette Davis
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:07 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Comments on RDA draft 6.10
I think there has been some confusion regarding access points and
linking
entries.
Renette Davis wrote:
6.10.2.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the
succeeding resource? Wouldn't that be an earliest entry record?
I agree completely -- AACR2 21.28 includes in its terminology
"continuations and sequels" for examples, yet 21.28B1 offers not a
single
Kevin M. Randall said:
>The linking fields are there for the purpose of creating notes and linking
>related records.
The authors of RDA seem to me to be thinking in terms of FRBR, linking
in particular, when writing the provisions under discussion. If you
have a link to a record, you presumably
At 04:34 PM 7/25/2006, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>I don't think 780 and 785 are access points.
They are access points in every catalogue for which we prepare MARC
records. Why else have them? If one just wanted a note, wouldn't one
use 5XX?
While some systems (or implementations of some system
Some of these linking field citations do NOT make good access points,
because of the way they are constructed and coded all in one MARC
subfield, witness the following linking fields for translations of
journals:
780 00 $t Radiotekhnika i elektronika. English. Radio engineering and
electronics
>I don't think 780 and 785 are access points.
They are access points in every catalogue for which we prepare MARC
records. Why else have them? If one just wanted a note, wouldn't one
use 5XX?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Catalo
At 02:11 PM 7/25/2006, Mac Elrod wrote:
Rennette Davis said:
>6.10.1.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the
>preceding resource? Wouldn't that be a latest entry record?
We do this now via 780 (to speak in MARC). The difficulty is that if
a collection lacks one segment o
A few more comments on RDA draft 6.10.
6.10.1.1.2 - List includes "resources that are superseded by another
resource". "Superseded by" is a pre-AACR2 term. Is it coming back now?
6.10.1.2.1a.3 - How would this look? This section is for recording the
earlier titles on the
Rennette Davis said:
>6.10.1.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the
>preceding resource? Wouldn't that be a latest entry record?
We do this now via 780 (to speak in MARC). The difficulty is that if
a collection lacks one segment of a serial which has had several title
ch
12 matches
Mail list logo
