Print

---

I applied exactly the same logic, since the RDA definition of an edition 
statement in 2.5.1.1 and especially of a "Designation of Edition" in 
2.5.2.2 seem to point that way.

On Oct 25 2012, Helen Doyle wrote:

>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