Personally (note distancing of self from anything authoritative here :) )
I would say it's the level of aboutness that determines the relationship
here.
I'd say books that review other books are dependent on them - without the
first work, there wouldn't be the second. That's true of manuals for
subject headings etc. There's a level of dependency there.
That's different, in my mind (distancing again), from, say, a book about
the Romantic poets that discusses several of their works.
FRBR. You gotta love the debates it generates.
Anne
On 24/10/2012 11:02, "C.J. Carty" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Catching up quickly, so apologies if I've missed some discussion but I
>didn't use related works for LCSH here because I was assuming it would be
>covered by use of .... er... LCSH subject headings themselves :) However,
>I
>see the point but are we really saying that every book *about* another
>work
>needs a related work as well as a subject entry?
>
>Celine
>
>On Oct 24 2012, Welsh, Anne wrote:
>
>>I agree they should be related. I just didn't think of that at the time
>>:)
>>
>>Library of Congress Subject Headings is a proper noun so should be
>>capitalised.
>>
>>There's also the option in RDA (terrifying though it is for us) to
>>transcribe capitals as they appear on the title page (but I think this is
>>really meant for those who accept publisher data (because that's what
>>ONIX
>>does), and can't bring myself to capitalise at the random whim of a page
>>designer (VIRTUAL REFERENCE DESK ahoy)!
>>
>>Anne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 24/10/2012 10:49, "Helen Doyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>Copyright date - I agree, RDA 2.11 says c/right date is core if date of
>>>publication or distribution isn't known.
>>>
>>>Does LCSH need capitals? I put Library of Congress (name of place), but
>>>then wasn't sure about Subject Headings.
>>>
>>>'Preferred title' ('uniform title' in AACR2) - do we need to fill this
>>>in
>>>every time? RDA says it's a core element, but in AACR2 'uniform title'
>>>is
>>>only used if required.
>>>
>>>Related works - I feel Vanda's book needs to be connected to the LCSHs
>>>themselves, as her book takes them as a starting point. Her Work (in a
>>>FRBR
>>>sense) is intrinsically linked to/based on another Work.
>>>
>>>HelenD.
>>>
>>>
>>>Helen Doyle
>>>Assistant Librarian
>>>
>>>Royal Academy of Dance
>>>36 Battersea Square
>>>London
>>>SW11 3RA
>>>0207 326 8032
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Helen Williams <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2012 10:31 am >>>
>>>Thank you to everyone who has submitted a version of record 2.
>>>
>>>It's time to open up discussion on anything you'd like to raise. It's
>>>going to be very useful to talk about the differences we see in records,
>>>and on some issues we may be able to come to consensus, while other
>>>areas will remain open to interpretation! Any comments we make won't be
>>>criticisms of differences in records, so please feel free to discuss.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A few things I've noticed to start us off...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>*some of us have included a second 264 field with a (c) date
>>>
>>>* some of us (including me!) have included a relationship designator of
>>>'author' - what's the feeling about whether this is necessary on a
>>>straightforward record?
>>>
>>>* A few people have included related works/manifestations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Plenty of other differences too, so let's open the discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Helen
>>>
>>>Helen Williams
>>>
>>>Assistant Librarian, Bibliographic Services
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>LSE Library Services
>>>
>>>The London School of Economics and Political Science
>>>
>>>10 Portugal Street
>>>
>>>London WC2A 2HD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>020 7955 7234
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>>>communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>--
>Céline Carty
>English Cataloguing
>Cambridge University Library
>Cambridge CB3 9DR
>
>
|