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
