Print

Print


Mark et al.,

We've been discussing related RDA rules for this non-core element with the JSC this week. I'll report on resolution soon.

Judy

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Revised document "US RDA Test Policy for the Extra Set: Use of Existing Authority and Bibliographic Records"

Judith Kuhagen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Attached is a revision of the document with a change in how the 7XX 
> field will be given in LC/NAF records.  This revised version will also 
> be posted on the US RDA Test documentation site 
> (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatest.html).

I'm curious about the changes made to the 370 fields in the examples found at the end of this revised document.  The use of parentheses around the state abbreviations appears to contradict the instructions in the second half of RDA 16.2.2.4, which deals formatting place names associated with persons, families, corporate bodies, among a few other things.  Am I reading the RDA rule incorrectly?

--
Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
Coordinator                    University of Minnesota Bibliographic & Technical      15 Andersen Library
  Services (BATS) Unit        222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439 <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>