-
Recent posts
Recent comments
- Kathryn Lybarger on Community vocabularies in RDA Toolkit
- Timothy Ryan Mendenhall on Representative expressions of an aggregating work
- Ryan Tamares on Representative expressions of an aggregating work
- Ryan Tamares on Appendices for Representative expressions of aggregating works
- Ryan Tamares on Community vocabularies in RDA Toolkit
Archives
Comment policy
Only current CC:DA members and liaisons are authorized to comment on posts. Others who wish to contribute to CC:DA's discussions are invited to provide input by contacting the Chair, a member of the Committee, or their appropriate liaison.
New CC:DA members and liaisons will be assigned an account for the CC:DA Blog during the month of their initial appointment. For assistance with an account contact the CC:DA Webmaster.
All first-time comments on this site are moderated. We ask that all comments be relevant to the post to which they are directed and maintain professional courtesy.
All categories
Tag cloud
agenda ALA2012 ALA2013 ALA2014 ALA2015 ALA2016 ALA proposal Annual 2012 Annual 2013 Annual 2014 Annual 2015 Behrens Bourassa British Library Canadian Committee on Cataloguing Chair's report corporate bodies Dunsire Glennan Iseminger JSC JSC rep Lapka Library of Congress McGrath Midwinter 2012 Midwinter 2013 Midwinter 2014 Midwinter 2016 minutes music Music Working Group (JSC) Myers NARDAC OLAC PCC RDA Rendall Reser response Robare Rolla RSC Shrader SnyderLinks
A brief comment on the welcomed proposal to change 6.2 to cover marks of omission (CC:DA/JSC Rep/KPG/2014/4). Though the new wording refers to both serials and multipart monographs, the related exception under 2.3.1.4 only mentions serials in particular, amplified by examples that only come from that class of works. But multipart monographs can have the same issue if described in a comprehensive record, e.g., from ISBD 1.1.3.5, “Prima [-decima] egloga della Bucolica di Virgilio” and from OCLC #5818158, “The first[-third] part of King Henry VI.”
In short, that exception to 2.3.1.4 needs revision as well. [Mark Ehlert, posted by Rolla]
I have another comment to make, this on CC:DA/JSC Rep/KPG/2014/6 (“Creating instructions for using nominative case for titles (RDA 6.2) and names (RDA
8.5)”) and CC:DA/JSC Rep/KPG/2014/4 (“Using the mark of omission in preferred titles (RDA 6.2)”). The paragraph under RDA 6.2.1.3 is repeated several times in Chapter 6, with slight variations: 6.14.1.3; 6.19.1.3; 6.23.1.3; and 6.26.1.3. I didn’t see these instructions mentioned in the proposals’ text, but any revision to 6.2.1.3 may need to be mirrored in these other locations too. [Mark Ehlert]
The proposal treats a scenario in which RDA clearly needs additional instructions, and the proposed solution is reasonable.
However, I’m reluctant to support the suggestion that 2.3.1.4 needs revision as well. For *multipart monographs*, RDA guidelines 2.3.2.12.1 (Recording Changes in the Title Proper) and 2.3.8 (Later Title Proper) provide an adequate solution. They allow us to record the changes in title like so:
2.3 Title proper: The first part of King Henry VI
2.8 Later title: The second part of King Henry VI
2.8 Later title: The third part of King Henry VI