Print

Print


Yes, it's really difficult to think through all this. We're supposed to
indicate somewhere the latest version of the integrating resource from
which the catalogue record was created - 2.20.13.4 - but I wasn't sure
where to put this on the form (somewhere in the notes, obviously). And I
wondered which iteration to link back to - the last monograph version
would be 1998, wouldn't it? And do we need to link back to AACR as well?
And do we need to link forward to RDA?

Anne







On 24/10/2012 15:44, "Helen Doyle" <[log in to unmask]> 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
>
>
>