The individual updates would presumably be interfiled into the main work,
that's the nature of an integrating resource, so a single update doesn't
exist as a work in its own right (in my opinion, based on experience of
cataloguing integrating resources only in an AACR2/MARC context I must
add). Therefore the work is still AACR2, it is just we have the iteration
(do we still use that term in RDA?) of AACR2 that is updated to the 2005
update. Does that make sense? You amend the record to update it with the
details of the latest iteration but there is not a relationship, it's still
the same work.
Feel this may be too late in the day to talk about integrating resources &
RDA!
Celine
On Oct 24 2012, Helen Doyle wrote:
> I guess I would put "Update of: Anglo-American cataloguing rules 2nd
> edition, 1998 revision".
>
> Am struggling to decide whether looseleaf updates count as a related work
> - they are more a part of the integrating resource (in fact, the very
> thing that makes it "integrating") rather than stand-alone works in their
> own right - ?
>
>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 3:36 pm >>>
>Another question about this record, is whether Anglo-American
>cataloguing rules 2nd edition, 1998 revision is a related work?
>
>
>
>And would you call it 'revision of' or 'update of' or just enter the
>title?
>
>
>
>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
|