John Hostage wrote:
> How useful would that information be in either case?  If you have a
> record that uses more than one convention, wouldn't you have to know
> which elements follow which convention?  Otherwise, the information
> that more than one convention was used is not very helpful.
> Shouldn't a cataloger choose a convention to follow and more or less
> stick to it?  There will always be extensions and variations, as
> there always have been.

I think the example of following RDA but also applying rare book 
conventions is likely to occur, and the information is worth having -- 
if only to curtail the tendency to want to "correct" by expunging 
ancillary information transcribed within statement of responsibility, 
and (where ISBD punctuation is included) to justify transcribed punctuation.
> 
> But if we must use multiple codes, it seems better to make the
> subfield repeatable than to create an endless series of combination
> codes.

Indeed.  Once upon a time we had language codes in 041 combined within a 
single subfield -- and those codes were of standard length; codes for 
040 $e are of variable length.  Let's make it easy, please, with 
repeatable $e!

Hal Cain
Dalton McCaughey Library
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
[log in to unmask]