Those were the things that struck me too, and in fact things I wasn't sure about as I catalogued. It seemed to me that -
* copyright statement only core if year of publication not identified
* "author" not necessary for creator relationship designator? RDA I.2 "If the element used to record the relationship (e.g., creator) is considered sufficient for the purposes of the agency creating the data, do not use a relationship designator to indicate the specific nature of the relationship."
I would think that the relationship between works is clearer though - isn't this a guide to LCSH?
What do others think?
From: Helen Williams [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 October 2012 10:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 2
Thank you to everyone who has submitted a version of record 2.
Itís time to open up discussion on anything youíd like to raise. Itís 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 wonít be criticisms of differences in records, so please feel free to discuss.
A few things Iíve noticed to start us offÖ
*some of us have included a second 264 field with a © date
* some of us (including me!) have included a relationship designator of Ďauthorí Ė whatís 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 letís open the discussion
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
Quakers say: Each person is unique, precious, a child of God.