Just to be clear, because I still see some ambiguity lurking in what
both John and Judy wrote:
After January 2, PoCo says that bib records designated as RDA should
nevertheless use authorized headings coded as AACR2, even when the
AACR2 form differs from the form that would be strictly in accordance
Also, is it clear that any additions to an AACR2 heading would follow
AACR2, not RDA, even when intended to authorize a heading in an RDA
bib record? E.g., to borrow John's example, hybrid practice such as
Royal College of Physicians of London. $b Department of Whatever
would be incorrect, and ... $b Dept. of ... would be preferred for
authorizing a heading on an RDA bib record?
The 7XXs could still be added to the AACR2 authorities, but would not
be considered in themselves as "authorizing" a bib heading--that would
require the presence of an RDA authority with a 1XX RDA heading. I'm
assuming that policy on when and how RDA 1XXs should parallel or
replace existing AACR2 authorities after the test has yet to be
If I'm understanding this correctly, it's very reassuring, and makes
the transition to RDA look much more manageable.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Mike Tribby
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>I don't think the testers are confused.
> Pardon me if this sounds abrupt, but speak for yourself, Bob.
> Mike Tribby
> Senior Cataloger
> Quality Books Inc.
> The Best of America's Independent Presses