Well, while we're talking about what "should" (and probably won't) be done, we might think about how standards should be enforced.  The mythical cataloging police were not very effective in enforcing  AACR2.   Some of us debated fine points on mailing lists while all sorts of records went into OCLC.   Perhaps the equally mythical cataloging counselors will have better luck in advising us towards some basic consistency using more flexible guidelines.

Amy





-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of john g marr
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 12:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Access Points for Related Works for Compilations

On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Bartl, Joseph wrote:

> But, certainly, this is no different than "it" under AACR2, is it?

Hi Joe:

  The difference is the difference between RDA and AACR2. If one "code" 
allows for more "flexibility" and contains more ambiguity than the other, then the *effect* of the variables you have listed is magnified. It would be handy to have instead a "code" that reduces these effects. Contest: 
list the ways that could be accomplished (maybe RDA designers "should" 
have tried that in the first place).

Cheers!

jgm

  John G. Marr
  CDS, UL, UNM
  Albuquerque, NM 87131
  [log in to unmask]

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.