 |
 |
This is a really interesting point. My preference would be not to abridge as well, though as a non-NACO library although it adds to our authority work, it doesn't have the impact that it does for a NACO library. Although I hope to be able to accept incoming records 'as is', if they are acceptable RDA core records', I still need to think through the implications of having some acceptable records which don't conform to local policy, as this could be an issue particularly in terms of discoverability and OPAC display. I'd be interested to know what others are thinking as well. Helen -----Original Message----- From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C.J. Carty Sent: 24 October 2012 12:32 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4 Yes, this is something we're having discussions about now. Our preference is not to abridge (either in transcription or in access points) but it does add to authority work (we are NACO contributors). Also, whatever we decide as our local policy, we also need to figure out whether we would edit/amend downloaded records to follow that if they did abridge. This is a big issue, especially given the volume of extra checking and editing this might involve. The same question (about whether we want to edit incoming records to match local policy decisions even if they are otherwise perfectly acceptable records meeting RDA core requirements) is a much broader issue we haven't yet settled. Celine On Oct 24 2012, Garner, Helen J (LIS) wrote: > I included all editors in this record (rather than abridge), but I > think we will have to make a local decision on what we actually do. I > have a concern about the impact on name authority maintenance. Helen > > From: CIG E-Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Helen Williams Sent: 24 October 2012 12:03 To: > [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4 > > Looking at the notes in Debbie's record has reminded me of a good > point to make on this record - in all the records I've looked at so > far I think we've all made the decision to enter all 4 editors, rather > than use the option to abridge. > > Also, what do people think about relationship designators here. I was > unsure whether to use editor, or editor of compilation. > >Helen > > From: CIG E-Forum > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:CIG-E-FORUM@JISCMAI > L.AC.UK]> On Behalf Of Helen Williams Sent: 24 October 2012 12:00 To: > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: > [CIG-E-FORUM] Discussion of record 4 > >Let's kick off discussion of record 4 before lunchtime. > > Did anyone else add a related work for 'In series: Principles and > practice in records management and archives' I wasn't quite sure how > to format this either. > >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 > > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer > -- 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