Print

Print


Apologies if I've missed something here, but if an authority record represents a new 1xx in RDA form (because the name itself had not been established up to that point), a pcc bibliographic record that used the heading but was otherwise cataloged as AACR2 should still use the RDA heading? (based on the principle that we aren't going to create parallel authority or bibliographic records)

Steven Arakawa 
Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation
Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University
P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240  
(203)432-8286 [log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Policy Committee meeting outcomes (Clarification on Decision 2)

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
with RDA.

Correct?

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
settled.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it's very reassuring, and makes
the transition to RDA look much more manageable.

Stephen

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
>
>