Michael A. Chopey said:
>I don't see why you don't think TOCs and publishers' descriptions fall
>into the category "related resource." Are they not "resources?" Are
>they not "related" to the bibliographic entity you are describing in the
>body of the record?
I don't think we help patrons my mixing up related works (earlier and
later editions, translations, etc.) with things whichh are not "works"
in the sense patrons understand the term. TOC's aren't related; they
are part of the work. Summaries and images describe the work, and are
useless as independent works.
The purpose of the indicator (as is the case of the whole MARC record)
is to guide patrons to what will help them. If they are looking for
a related resource, a summary or picture doesn't qualify.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
|