 |
 |
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.