RDA Example : Translations in RDA : RDA vs AACR2 : Book with both the Original Work and its Translation

Following RDA example shows how RDA differs from AACR2 in regards to  books with text in both the original language and its translation(s). This book has both the original work (in Sanskrit) and its English translation.

Under AACR2, it would have been easier to see that there's a translation as there would have been a 240 of:

240 10 ‡a Pūyamēhavijñāna. ‡l English & Sanskrit

Under RDA, there is no longer a 240 for this situation. Rather, there are 2 700s:

700 12 ‡a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi. ‡t Pūyamēhavijñāna. [for the original in Sanskrit]

700 12 ‡a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi. ‡t Pūyamēhavijñāna. ‡l English. [for the English translation]

010	__ |a 2009345913
025	__ |a I-E-2009-345913; 44
040	__ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC |d DLC |e rda
041	1_ |a eng |a san |h san
042	__ |a lcode |a pcc
050	00 |a RC202 |b .K67 2007
100	1_ |a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi.
245	10 |a Aupasargikatantrāntargata Pūyamēha vijn̄ānam / |c Vempati Kōṭēśvara Śāstri Gāru, Nāgalingam Viśvanāṭha Śāstri Gāru ; translation with critical commentary, M. Srinivasulu, C. Narmada Reddy ; chief editor, G.S. Lavekar ; editor, A. Narayana.
246	3_ |a Pūyamēha vijn̄ānam
250	__ |a First edition.
264	_1 |a Nai Dilli : |b Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha, |c 2007.
300	__ |a xvii, 228 pages ; |c 25 cm
336	__ |a text |2 rdacontent
337	__ |a unmediated |2 rdamedia
338	__ |a volume |2 rdacarrier
546	__ |a In English and Sanskrit |b (Sanskrit in roman and Devanagari).
520	__ |a Gonorrhea management within the theoretical and practical framework of ayurvedic principles.
504	__ |a Includes bibliographical references (page 228).
650	_0 |a Gonorrhea |x Ayurvedic treatment.
650	_0 |a Medicine, Ayurvedic.
700	1_ |a Viśvanāthaśāstri, Nāgalingam.
700	1_ |a Lavekar, G. S.
700	1_ |a Nārāyaṇa, Alā.
700	1_ |a Srinivasulu, M.
700	1_ |a Narmada Reddy, C.
700	12 |a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi. |t Pūyamēhavijñāna.
700	12 |a Koṭīśvaraśāstrī, Vēmpaṭi. |t Pūyamēhavijñāna. |l English.
710	2_ |a Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (India)

When you do shelflisting, look out for clues such as the above that will help you know that there is a translation involved. And remember to apply the Translation Table from G 150 to the call number.

[Source: http://lccn.loc.gov/2009345913]

• Follow RDA Blog in Social Media: Google+ | Facebook | Google+ Community | Twitter | YouTube | SlideShare | Tumblr | WordPress | Flipboard | Pinterest | LinkedIn

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

How Did RDA Come To Be?

AACR3?

In the late 1990’s the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules decided to make changes for the future of AACR. It realized that the changes that give us a new way to look at our environment also give us new opportunities to improve how we deliver bibliographic information to users.

Resource Description and Access

In 2002, work had begun on a revision of AACR2, called AACR3.  However, by April 2005, the plan had changed.  The reactions to an initial draft raised particular concerns about the need to move to closer alignment with the FRBR model and to build an element set. It was clear that we could not continue doing cataloging the way we always had.  We could no longer produce records in MARC format in systems that could not talk to the rest of the information community.

A new plan was developed and the name was changed to Resource Description and Access to emphasize the two important tasks. Importantly, the Anglo-American emphasis was removed.

Collaboration with Other Communities

The Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for the Development of RDA has paid close attention to developments in IFLA as well as in various metadata communities, and initiated collaborations with the publishers’ community who were developing their own metadata set called ONIX.  Together these parties developed controlled vocabularies for media types, content types, and carrier types (called the RDA/ONIX Framework).

 

In 2007, JSC representatives met with key collaborators and agreed to examine the fit between RDA and other metadata models.  Together we have created an initial registry for the RDA elements and controlled terms, available freely on the Web.

In 2008 the JSC started participating in a joint effort to determine what revisions are necessary to accommodate the encoding of RDA in MARC 21. The RDA/MARC Working Group has presented proposals to MARBI (the Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information committee of ALA), many of which have already been approved.

RDA addresses all types of materials collected by libraries, but defers to specialized cataloging manuals for more specific rules needed for some types of materials -- for cultural objects, rare materials, cartographic resources, and more. In some cases, there will be a transition or “bridge” period to move from current practices and formats and systems to the next generation.

A Tool for the Digital World

The Joint Steering Committee stated among the goals for RDA that it was to be a tool designed for the digital world.  This had several implications:

• RDA was to be a Web-based tool optimized for use as an online product. The result is the RDA Toolkit, which continues to be refined with feedback from users.
• RDA was to be a tool that addresses cataloging all types of content and media
• RDA was to be a tool that results in records that are intended for use in the digital environment, through the Internet, Web-OPACs, etc.
• RDA was intended to result in records with a metadata set of elements intended to be readily adaptable to newly emerging database structures.

 

RDA Specific Goals

Although not all of the stated goals for RDA have yet been reached, but good progress is being made and proposals for improvements are still welcome.  Specifically, RDA rules were to:

• be easy to use and interpret
• be applicable to an online, networked environment
• provide effective bibliographic control for all types of media
• encourage use beyond the library community
• be compatible with other similar standards
• have a logical structure based on internationally agreed-upon principles
• separate content and carrier data, and separate content from display
• provide numerous examples, appropriate and relevant to the specific instruction

[Source: Library of Congress]

Why RDA?

Why RDA?

Let’s first encounter head-on the questions from those who ask:

“Why we don’t just amend AACR2 again, like we used to?”

To address such questions, we need to:

• Examine the current cataloging environment -- and how it continues to evolve
• Perceive how Resource Description and Access (RDA) is an improvement over AACR2 as a tool for that environment

The Cataloging Environment

Catalogs are no longer isolated within the walls of an institution. Bibliographic data from any source can now be integrated into the wider Internet environment. New kinds of links can be made, and new displays can be generated for users from data packaged in new ways -- all of it on a global scale in multiple languages and scripts. These can be called ‘linked data systems.’  We now have the technology to provide global connection anywhere that computers can operate.  That includes the digital connections of cell phones or smart phones with Internet connections to link to any user -- any place -- any time.

The information systems and content in the future will be accessible on the Web. The elements that describe our resources will be available to libraries and users everywhere in the world through a Web front-end that connects users to services and data. That data may come from publishers, from creators, from libraries and other institutions … or from anywhere.

Actually, bibliographic data and digital resources are already on the Web, and we’ve started adding the controlled vocabularies from libraries to help identify resources. RDA enables us to identify all the identifying characteristics of all the things we have in our collections, in ways that machines and the Internet can manipulate for more useful displays for users.

Our entire cataloging environment continues to evolve:

• It is increasingly Web-based.
• We need to catalog a much wider range of information carriers than we did in the past.
• We need to deal with many more types of content and complexity of content in the resources that we catalog.
• Metadata is now created by a wider range of people, who have a wider range of skill levels -- not only by skilled professional catalogers, but by support staff, non-library staff, vendors, wikipedians, and also publishers.  Some of us are using structures other than the MARC format for our records (e.g., using Dublin Core for some digital resources).

And we now have access to descriptive data for resources in digital form – even when the resource is in standard book format, the descriptive data is now available from many publishers using ONIX, which is information we can capture for our bibliographic records.

In the digital world we sometimes find that basic bibliographic description is an integral part of a digital object - the software that helps create the digital object or digitizes an analog object, automatically provides a basic set of metadata, that is attributes or data elements.  Think of how the software for word processing, like Microsoft Word, suggests a name for your document based on the first words you type (ironically the “titles” for early manuscripts were the first line of text, too!)  Or how it can automatically provide the date you created the document. So we can envision the automatic creation of some of the bibliographic information our cataloging systems can capture, saving the cataloger’s time.  RDA builds on this to emphasize transcribing what you see for the basic elements of bibliographic description (‘the representation principle’).

A key aspect of this new “Semantic Web” environment is that it is built on element-based metadata schemas and vocabularies -- and that is exactly what RDA delivers.

The Problems with AACR2

During the 1990’s there were many complaints about how unsatisfactory AACR2 was:

• “It has become increasingly complex”
• “There is no logical structure”
• “It mixes content and carrier data”
• “Hierarchical and other important relationships are not adequately addressed” 
• “It reflects an Anglo-American centric viewpoint” 
• “It pre-dates the FRBR entity-relationship conceptual model”
• “There is not enough support for the ‘collocation’ function of cataloging”
• “It did not foresee the Internet or the existence of well-formed metadata or vocubularies”

[Source: Library of Congress]

Number of Bibliographic Volumes Differing from Number of Physical Volumes - Questions and Answers

Question: AACR2 says If the number of bibliographic volumes differs from the number of physical volumes, give the number of bibliographic volumes followed by in and the number of physical volumes: 8 v. in 5. How will we treat this in RDA.

Answer: Relevant RDA rule is given below from RDA Toolkit.

RDA rule 3.21.2.8 is for "Number of Bibliographic Volumes Differing from Number of Physical Volumes"

According to this rule it should be given in MARC as:

300 $a 5 volumes
500 $a 8 bibliographic volumes in 5 physical volumes

Please note that 3.21.2.8 is revised. Earlier it was numbered as 3.22.2.8.

Note: Serials are exception.

[Revised: 2015-02-04]

Adding Date to Conventional Collective Titles : Questions and Answers

Question: According to slide 8 of http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_compilations.ppt we are to add the date to conventional collective titles beginning with "Works". Please verify if this is now optional or required.

Answer:  The PPT  take a look at it now. http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/Refresher_training_dec_2011.html

Question: Great! Slide 8 is now revised. However, slide 9 still gives an example of the old practice.

Answer (Ana Lupe Cristán, Library of Congress): Yes, the point is you DON’T HAVE to add it but you can if you want too.  It used to be mandatory now it is optional, plus you'll see a lot of them still in the LC/NAF and we do not expect catalogers to remove the dates.   

Revised Slides as Discussed Above

Compilations of one creator: Things to remember

• If your resource is a compilation by a single creator, determine if that compilation has become known over time by a title and use that title, otherwise use a conventional collective title
• Not necessary to know if a creator created works only in a single form.
• Do not use “Selections” in subfield $a of the 240.
• Current LC practice is NOT to add routinely add a date to any collective conventional title that begins with Works.

Notes: Let’s recap and say it in a different way - If your resource is a compilation by a single creator, determine if that compilation has become known over time by a title; this situation does not occur often but you’ll know it when it does.

No longer will a cataloger need to determine what AACR2 requires: knowing if the creator created works only in a single form. No longer will LC catalogers apply different policies if the title proper of the compilation is a “distinctive title.”

Under AACR2 and when we first implemented RDA, we added a date in subfield $f following “Works” or “Works. Selections” in a 240. Our current practice is not to add the date, thus we reuse the same authorized access point for a compilation of the complete works of an author published in 2012 and one published in 2013.

Compilations – one creator

• Remember that a corporate body can be a creator also so long as the contents meet the criteria at: RDA 19.2.1.1.1

 [Source: Library of Congress]

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

September Update for RDA Catalogers

Dear RDA catalogers,

This message is to alert you to some information about RDA on these topics:

Topic 1.  Interim treatment of "Treaties" under RDA

Topic 2.  Reminder on formulating the preferred name and authorized access point for some types of conferences

Topic 3.  A typo in an RDA example that has the potential to confuse

Topic 1:  Interim treatment of "Treaties" under RDA.  Based on a request from the American Association of Law Libraries, the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has approved an interim exception to the treatment of authorized access points for treaties under RDA.  The legal community is re-evaluating how authorized access points for treaties should be constructed under RDA, and has proposed some major changes to RDA that will be discussed by the Joint Steering Committee at its November meeting.  To avoid disruption within the existing NACO file and related bibliographic maintenance until RDA itself is changed, the following guidelines for new and existing authorized access points should be observed until a final solution has been determined:

New authorized access points for treaties: If no authorized access point exists for a treaty, continue to use AACR2 instructions (AACR2 25.16 Treaties, etc., and 21.35 Treaties, Intergovernmental agreements, etc.) to establish the authorized form, except, use the full form of the name of a month when necessary to record a date a treaty was signed instead of the abbreviations from AACR2. Code any new authority record as AACR2 in 008/10 (Descriptive Cataloging Rules) as an exception to the PCC Post RDA Test Guidelines.

Existing authorized access points for treaties (AACR2): Do not revise an existing AACR2 authorized access point in a name authority record for a treaty to the RDA form, continue to use the AACR2 form in RDA bibliographic records.

Existing authorized access points for treaties (RDA): Do not revise an existing RDA authorized access point in a name authority record for a treaty back to AACR2, continue to use the RDA form in bibliographic records.

These exceptions for treaties are also found in the PCC Post RDA Test Guidelines at

http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/rda/PCC%20Post%20RDA%20Test%20Guidelines.html under the heading Exception for Treaties.  LC-PCC PSs will also be issued until such time that RDA itself is changed.

Topic 2:  Reminder on formulating the preferred name and authorized access points for conferences.

A reminder that under RDA, a date that might appear with the name of a conference that is an initialsm or acronym is *not* included as part of the preferred name for the conference- the date is only used as an addition to the authorized access point for the conference ($d in the X11).  From RDA 11.2.2.11:  "Omit from the name of a conference, etc., indications of its number, or year or years of convocation, etc. Apply this instruction to the name of a congress, meeting, exhibition, fair, festival, etc. …"

This was a change from how we treated such conferences under the LCRIs for AACR2. 

Examples:

Under AACR2/LCRI:      CDVE 2011 $d (2011 : $c Hong Kong, China)

Treatment under RDA: CDVE (Conference) $n (8th : $d 2011 : $c Hong Kong, China)

Under AACR2/LCRI:       ICT-GLOW 2011 $d (2011 : $c Toulouse, France)

Treatment under RDA: ICT-GLOW (Conference) $n (1st : $d 2011 : $c Toulouse, France)

(Note that under RDA/LC-PCC PS policies, it is now possible to create separate authorities coexisting in the LC/NACO authority file for the "collective" ongoing conference and for individual instances of it, which was not permitted under AACR2/LCRI.  Note also that the term "(Conference)" or similar term is added to preferred name for a conference that is an initialism or acronym in order to convey the idea of a corporate body per LC-PCC PS 11.7.1.4 )

Topic 3.  A typo in RDA example that has the potential to confuse

Several have noted an unfortunate editing mistake in an example at RDA 9.19.1.6 showing an authorized access point using the new RDA element "Other term of rank, honour or office"-- it will be corrected in the next release (November) of the RDA Toolkit

                Wood, Captain, John

should be

                Wood, John, Captain

Please don't follow this example!

[Source: Library of Congress]

Incomplete Resource

RDA Rule 3.4.1.10 for Incomplete Resource record the term indicating the type of unit without the number. This has to be applied also for a resource when the total number of units issued is unknown.

300 $a volumes
300 $a volumes (loose-leaf)

LC-PCC PS for 3.4.1.10 - INCOMPLETE RESOURCE

Incomplete Multipart Monographs

LC practice: Do not give LC’s local holdings for incomplete multipart monographs in MARC field 300; ensure that there are item records for each part or unit.

PCC practice: Do not give local holdings for multipart monographs in MARC field 300.

Updating Loose-leafs

LC practice/PCC practice: If the updating loose-leaf includes transfer volumes, describe the extent in terms of "loose-leaf" and "transfer."

EXAMPLE

300 ##

$a volumes (loose-leaf), volume (transfer)

<<<<------>>>>

NOTE: ABOVE PRACTICES ARE "CHANGES FROM AACR2 TO RDA"

[Source: RDA Toolkit]

Recording of Parallel Title : LC-PCC Best Practices Guidelines

Myth:

“A parallel title can only be recorded if it appears on the same source as the title proper.”

Reality:

No, this is the AACR2 rule.  Under RDA, the parallel title may be recorded without brackets if it appears anywhere within the resource.

In RDA a parallel title no longer has to appear on the same source as the title proper to be considered as such. For example, if the romanized title appears on the t.p. verso, it would still be considered a parallel title.

[Source : Library of Congress]

TIP OF THE DAY

Whenever we recode an AACR2 NAR to RDA, we should also re-evaluate the record (especially the heading) to see if anything needs to be revised.

Acronyms as variants in RDA NARs

QUESTION:

Would the same rules for qualifying a corporate body apply to both the heading and the variants? For example, would this be appropriate under RDA:

110 2_ Progressive Artists Group (Jaipur, India)

410 2_ PAG (Jaipur, India)

We would never qualified "PAG" under AACR2 when it's used as a variant form. When it's used as a heading, of course, then we would qualify. What about in RDA?

ANSWER:

We had a very specific LCRI practice that basically forbade the adding of qualifiers to many kinds of references, we got rid of those restrictions on variants because they represented an exception that wasn't really important and only caused confusion. 11.13.2.1 tells you that you can add the same additions to variants as to authorized access points.

For personal names see RDA Rule 9.19.2.1

(Reproduction of Question and Answer from experts from LC)

<<<<<---------->>>>>

RDA Rule 11.13.2.1 : General Guidelines on Constructing Variant Access Points to Represent Corporate Bodies [This rule suggests to Make additions to the name, if considered important for identification]:

• Addition to a Name Not Conveying the Idea of a Corporate Body 
• Place Associated with the Body
• Associated Institution
• Date Associated with the Body
• Type of Jurisdiction
• Other Designation Associated with the Body
• Number, Date, and Location of a Conference, Etc.

RDA Rule 9.19.2.1 : General Guidelines on Constructing Variant Access Points to Represent Persons

[Revised on 2015-06-18]

See also:

• RDA Blog Home
• About RDA - Resource Description and Access
• About RDA Blog
• RDA Resources
• Cataloger's Reference Directory
• RDA Blog Testimonials
• Follow RDA Blog in Social Media: Google+ | Facebook | Google+ Community | Twitter | YouTube | SlideShare | Tumblr | WordPress | Flipboard | Pinterest | LinkedIn

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

Conference Names as Subordinate Bodies

In RDA the instructions for subordinate bodies (11.2.2.14) are the same as in AACR2.

Type 3 – Name that is general in nature      
•Annual Meeting; Macadamia Nut Association
•110 2# $a Macadamia Nut Association. $b Annual Meeting

Type 6 – Name that includes the entire name of the higher body         
•Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission
•110 2# $a International Whaling Commission. $b Annual Meeting

[Source: Library of Congress RDA Training materials]

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):

RECORDING SCRIPTS IN RDA

LC-PCC PS for 7.13.2

SCRIPT

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC/PCC

Script is a core element for LC if a language is commonly written in more than one script, and if the resource is in a script other than the primary one for the language.

[2012-05]

LC-PCC PS for 7.13.2.3

RECORDING SCRIPTS

Form of Script Name

LC practice/PCC practice: Use the English language names of scripts found at: 〈http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-en.html〉. Generally do not include the parenthetical information found in the list when recording the script name.

If a resource is in a language that is commonly written in more than one script, name both the language and the script.

  

EXAMPLE

546 ##

$a Konkani $b Kannada.

546 ##

$a Konkani $b Devanagari.

546 ##

$a Serbian $b Latin.

546 ##

$a Serbian $b Cyrillic.

546 ##

$a Syriac $b Nestorian.

Applicability

LC practice/PCC practice: If the resource is in a script other than the primary one for the language, name both the language and the script in the language note (MARC field 546).

EXAMPLE

546 ##

$a Panjabi.

For a publication using the Gurmukhi script

but

546 ##

$a Panjabi $b Devanagari.

For a publication using the Devanagari script

546 ##

$a Sindhi.

For a publication using the Persian script

but

546 ##

$a Sindhi $b Gurmukhi.

For a publication using the Gurmukhi script

546 ##

$a Azerbaijani.

For a publication using the Latin script

but

546 ##

$a Azerbaijani $b Arabic.

For a publication using the Arabic script

546 ##

$a Azerbaijani $b Cyrillic.

For a publication using the Cyrillic script

546 ##

$a Church Slavic.

For a publication using the Cyrillic script

but

546 ##

$a Church Slavic $b Glagolitic.

For a publication using the Glagolitic script

  

For complex notes involving multiple languages and scripts, see Policy Statement 7.13.2.4.

[2012-04]

LC-PCC PS for 7.13.2.4

Details of Scripts

LC practice/PCC practice: When recording complex notes involving multiple languages, record information about both the language and script in $a (Language note) of MARC field 546 (language and script in same subfield because $a is not repeatable).

EXAMPLE

546 ##

$a Kazakh, Uighur (Cyrillic), and Chagatai (Cyrillic and Arabic script).

EXAMPLE

546 ##

Sanskrit (Latin and Devanagari) and English.

[2012-04]

[Source: RDA Toolkit]

Illustrative Content

 

ILLUSTRATIVE CONTENT

• LC CORE ELEMENT for resources intended for children
• RDA 7.15
• Open list of vocabulary terms
• Recorded in MARC 008/18 as applicable and field 300 $b

This data is recorded in MARC 008/18 as applicable and field 300 $b

Sources: Take information on illustrative content from any source.

Recording Illustrative Content

If the resource contains illustrative content, record illustration or illustrations, as appropriate. Tables containing only words and/or numbers are not considered as illustrative content. Disregard illustrated title pages, etc., and minor illustrations.

Look below at LCPS 7.15.1.3 for the Alternative

“Generally do not record the type of illustrative content in place of or in addition to the term ‘illustration’ or ‘illustrations.’ ”

Optional Addition (7.15.1.3-Recording Illustrative Content)
Record the number of illustrations if their number can be ascertained readily (e.g., when the illustrations are listed and their numbers stated).
EXAMPLE
48 illustrations

<<<<-------->>>>

RDA VS AACR2 (Changes in treatment of illustrations in 300 field)

No abbreviations

“color” (not “col.”)
“sound” (not “sd.”)
“silent” (not “si.”)
“illustrations” (not “ill.”)

Color Content (Not LC Core) (RDA 7.17, LC-PCC PS-7.17.1.3)

Examples

color (illustrations are in color)
some color (10 maps, some of which are in color)
chiefly color (illustrations, most of which are in color)

Sources: Use evidence presented by the resource itself as the basis for recording the presence of color content in the resource. If desired, take additional evidence from any source.

Recording Colour Content
If the content of the resource is in colors other than black and white or shades of grey, record the presence of color using an appropriate term. Disregard colored matter outside the actual content of the resource (e.g., the border of a map).

LC practice: Use the spelling “color” when recording that term.

<<<<------>>>>

LC-PCC PS for 7.15 (RDA)

ILLUSTRATIVE CONTENT

CORE ELEMENT FOR LC

Illustrative content is a core element for LC for resources intended for children.

[2011-09]

LC-PCC PS for 7.15.1.3 (RDA)

ALTERNATIVE

LC practice for Alternative: Generally do not record the type of illustrative content in place of or in addition to the term "illustration" or "illustrations."

(Source: based on information in RDA Toolkit and LC RDA page information)

<<<<------>>>>



EXAMPLES

300 $b illustrations  [source: RDA RECORDS (JSC)]

300 $b illustrations (chiefly color)  [source: RDA RECORDS (JSC)]

300 $b color illustrations  [source: RDA RECORDS (JSC)]

Comment: includes photographs and other illustrations

300 $a ... : $b ill. ; $c ...

            comment:  if recording, do not abbreviate

_____  300 $a ... : $b illustrations ; $c ...

            comment:  acceptable but not required except for resources for children

LC       no 300 $b

_____  300 $a ... : $b illustrations, photographs ; $c ...

            comment:  acceptable but not required

Comment: includes charts, graphs, and other illustrations

_____  300 $a ... : $b illustrations ; $c ...

            comment:  acceptable but not required

_____  300 $a ... : $b ill. ; $c ...

            comment:  if recording, do not abbreviate

LC       no 300 $b

_____  300 $a ... : $b illustrations, graphs ; $c ...

            comment:  acceptable but not required

Answer from an expert from LC regarding illustrations (Note: LC policy): Under RDA only illustrations for resources intended for children is considered LC CORE in the bibliographic record. It is catalogers judgement to record the illustrations for other types of resources. So please use best judgement in providing this information if it is considered useful for users.

[Sources: RDA Toolkit, LC RDA training material, JSC RDA Records Examples, and transcript of communication from experts at LC]

See also:

• RDA Blog Home
• About RDA - Resource Description and Access
• About RDA Blog
• RDA Resources
• Cataloger's Reference Directory
• RDA Blog Testimonials
• Follow RDA Blog in Social Media: Google+ | Facebook | Google+ Community | Twitter | YouTube | SlideShare | Tumblr | WordPress | Flipboard | Pinterest | LinkedIn

Thanks all for your love, suggestions, testimonials, likes, +1, tweets and shares ....

See also related posts in following RDA Blog Categories (Labels):