Coming back very later to record 2: I very much hope that we will not go
in the direction of making RDA related-work (7XX) AAPs in records for
resources which are introductions, explanations, commentaries and
criticisms of other works. We have to make subject headings for them,
and that should be quite enough. 7XX would just be extra work and would
make records unnecessarily long and confusing for readers.  Even in
electronic records size matters - people don't want to be scrolling all
the time. 

Best wishes,
Bernadette 

******************* 
Bernadette O'Reilly 
Catalogue Support Librarian 
01865 2-77134 
Bodleian Libraries, 
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
******************* 


-----Original Message-----
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Helen
Doyle
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2

I'm not aware that AACR2 does anything like this, as this is pure FRBR. 

Also I am (sneakily) avoiding the MARC issue, as our LMS can't cope with
it! 

HelenD.



Helen Doyle
Assistant Librarian
 
Royal Academy of Dance
36 Battersea Square
London
SW11 3RA
0207 326 8032


>>> Nicky Ransom <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2012 11:36 am >>>
I can see what you mean. Is this a change from AACR2, or is it just that
I haven't understood AACR2 properly, never mind RDA!

If, for example, I'm cataloguing a manual about a computer program, I
would ordinarily have put the name of the computer program in a 630
field (title subject). But it should also go in 740 as a related title?

Nicky Ransom
Data Quality Manager & Cataloguer
University for the Creative Arts
Farnham
GU9 7DS

01252 892739
[log in to unmask] 
________________________________________
From: CIG E-Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Helen Doyle
[[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 24 October 2012 11:28
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2

I did wonder about this. RDA 25.1 defines a related work as "a work
related to the resource being described (e.g., an adaptation,
commentary, supplement, sequel, part of a larger work)" and Vanda's book
is none of these. But, her book would not have been written if LCSH
hadn't been written first - like the example of "Bored of the Rings" she
took an existing Work and wrote her book around it, rather than just on
the same subject.

I've used this reasoning for other records later, so would be good to
know if any else has any thoughts on this!

HelenD.


Helen Doyle
Assistant Librarian

Royal Academy of Dance
36 Battersea Square
London
SW11 3RA
0207 326 8032


>>> Nicky Ransom <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2012 11:03 am >>>
Is the relationship between the book and LCSH not one of subject, rather
than Work?

Nicky Ransom
Data Quality Manager & Cataloguer
University for the Creative Arts
Farnham
GU9 7DS
examples like that in downloaded RDA records.