Thank you Alan, your comments throughout the e-forum have all been
On Oct 25 2012, Danskin, Alan wrote:
>A new description is required when an integrating resource is re-based,
>188.8.131.52. This means, when the whole content is reissued. In the case
>of AACR2 the 2002 Revision warrants a new description as it was
>re-based in 2002. Subsequent updates or iterations are recorded by
>editing that description. This includes changes affecting
>identification of the work (184.108.40.206) which are reflected by amending the
>authorised access point representing the work.
>Superseded titles are recorded as Earlier title proper - MARC =247
>There is some debate about the best way of recording the date of
>publication (this is a coding isssue not an RDA issue), The question is
>whether to upate the currect 264 $c to reflect the date of the most
>recent update. This seems logical to me...
>Editorial responsibility for AACR rests with the Joint Steering
>Committee for Revision of AACR, making them the creator.
>I would certainly give authorised access points for the na\tional
>associations (ALA; CLA and CIILIP) who own AACR2, with relationship
>issuing body, but note BL is currently trying to clear up some ambiguity
>regarding this relationship designator..
>I would not give authorised access points on the description for the
>2002 revision from Gorman and Winkler, but I would record the
>relationsbip to the the 2nd Edition.-- as an unstructured description
>(or note, as we used to call them)
>220.127.116.11 If there is more than one publisher record them in the order
>indicated by sequence,layout or typography; the core requirement is to
>record the first only. So either record
>American Library Association; Canadian Library Association; Facet
>Publishing for Chartered Institute of Library and Information
>or just the core requirement
>American Library Association
Cambridge University Library
Cambridge CB3 9DR