That's one of my questions too, Helen!
I included UK edition, for the same reasons as you, but haven't included any similar statement if it said first published in 2012, though my reasoning was that I wouldn't do that at the moment - which isn't necessarily a good reason given we're talking about something new!
Helen 

-----Original Message-----
From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Helen Doyle
Sent: 25 October 2012 10:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Day 2 - record 6

Hi,

UK edition: I did include it, purely because it's got the word 'edition' in it (RDA 2.5.2.1). However, other examples we've looked at have said "First published 2012" and I haven't turned that into "1st edition" purely because it doesn't contain the word 'edition'. Am I being inconsistent?

HelenD.


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


>>> "C.J. Carty" <[log in to unmask]> 10/25/2012 10:04 am >>>
Dear all,

Here is my record for title 6, looking forward to another day of discussions. I did all of today's titles using the MARC template, though I must say I think I found the RDA template easier to use.

Questions in this record for me: 1) The edition statement - did others

consider "UK edition" to be an edition statement? 2) I've obviously decided to transcribe all the editors and also provide access points for them all. 
3) Relationship designators - after Alan's helpful email and all of yesterday's discussions on this, I'd need to see the contents page to make a decision here between "editor" and "editor of compilation" but feel fairly happy that they're not "author". I've left my original choice of

"editor" in the record.


--
Céline Carty
English Cataloguing
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR

Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer