A Soloka (are you the Alan Soroka formerly of UBC?) quoted:
>"Qualifier of title information to make it unique."
By "it" do they mean the title itself?
While we are in RDA, this is not possible. We are not allowed to add
data to a transcribed title (MARC 245 as opposed to uniform titles
MARC 130 or 240). These three types of titles need to be clearly
distinguished.
There are numerous titles for works which are not unique (unless
combined with authorship or other qualifier): "Works", "Complete
works", "Selected works", "Introduction to ... <most any subject>".
"History of ... <most any country>", etc. With both AACR2 and rDA, we
don't worry about uniqueness of title under author main entry, and
assign a uniform title for nonunique title main entries. I see no
point in having transcribed title serve the same function as a uniform
title. We can no longer add clarifying words to transcribed title as
Margaret Mann instructed.
Colour me confused by the whole discussion. Words are used in ways
which differ from their usual meanings, and with little reference to
past and present cataloguing practice. The phrase quoted above is
just one example of what I find to be ambiguous.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
