 |
 |
I think that the only RDA rules relevant to series AAPs are the general ones for work/expression AAPs. I would expect specific rules for series to be provided in CONSER documentation. 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 14:38 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 5 - series Does anyone know if there is any provision in RDA itself for this kind of distinction? Or is this more an encoding issue? 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 2:31 pm >>> I went for LITA guide in the 490 (transcription/title proper of series) and LITA guides in the 830 (related work) because I think that was the form used in the series authority record. I'm not sure if that's right though! Helen -----Original Message----- From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tabitha Driver Sent: 24 October 2012 14:28 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 5 - series Did anyone else have a problem with the title proper of the series? RDA 2.12.1.1 "The title proper of series is the chief name of a series (i.e., the title normally used when citing the series)" ≠ 2.12.2 "Take the title proper of a series from the following sources (in order of preference): a) the series title page [etc.]" I wanted to put "Lita guides" but felt 2.12.2 was instructing me to put "A LITA guide". Tabitha Driver ________________________________ Quakers say: Each person is unique, precious, a child of God. Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer