LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  July 2013

PCCTG1 July 2013

Subject:

Re: CCM Revision and Relationship Designators

From:

Steven C Shadle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:13:57 -0700

Content-Type:

MULTIPART/MIXED

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (47 lines)

Are there any places that relationship designators are mandatory?  I thought in general, the designators themselves, weren't core (although seems they would be necessary in linking relationships...step backwards there).  Apologies if I've missed something here.  --Steve

Steve Shadle/Serials Access Librarian            [log in to unmask]
Box 352900 - University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900                             Phone: (206) 685-3983

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, Balster, Kevin wrote:

> 
> Hello all,
> 
>  
> 
> I¢m hoping to get some opinions as to how RDA relationship designators should be handled within the revised CCM. While module 4 will now need to incorporate relationship designators in order align itself with
> current PCC practice, I don¢t believe that it would be the best place to give guidance on how to select appropriate relationship designators. Other modules, such as module 14 on linking relationships, would also
> need to incorporate relationship designators (albeit different designators), and by providing guidance within the modules we would be conflating the topics.
> 
>  
> 
> I¢ve given this a little thought and come up with a possible way of handling this situation. Within the modules, we could provide instructions on when including relationship designators are mandatory or
> voluntary, and where in RDA to look for an appropriate relationship designator if there are a variety to choose from. We could then add a new appendix with instructions on how to select relationship designators,
> and simply point to the appendix from the relevant modules.
> 
>  
> 
> Please let me know what you think,
> 
>  
> 
> -Kevin
> 
>  
> 
> Kevin Balster
> 
> ERM/Continuing Resources Metadata Librarian
> 
> UCLA Cataloging & Metadata Center
> 
> (310)825-1936
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager