On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Robert Bratton wrote:

> Relationship designators are not core (not required) in RDA so you do
> not have to use them for [any] authorized access point in a given
> bibliographic record.

  In order to avoid future discussions of what RDA "requires" and does not
"require", I wonder if some exceptionally brave, detail-obsessed person
would like to post a complete list of what RDA does *not* "require." For
example, RDA wasn't written with any particular vocabulary in mind for the
368 and 374 NAF fields. It would certainly make for interesting discussion
of "catalogers' prerogative."

  Cheers!

jgm

  John G. Marr
  Cataloger
  CDS, UL
  Univ. of New Mexico
  Albuquerque, NM 87131
  [log in to unmask]
  [log in to unmask]

     ** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
consider what goes on in between. **

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