Повести о Куликовской битве / изд. подготовили М.Н. Тихомиров, В.Ф. Ржига, Л.А. Дмитриев. (OCLC #2728286)
RDA 3.4.5.5 on Misleading numbering describes cases where the numbering on the last page does not represent the total number in that sequence, and says not to correct it unless it gives a completely false impression of the extent of the resource. For example, this volume’s last page has the page number misprinted, so the extent should be recorded as:
51, that is, 511 pages
Istorii︠a︡ odnoĭ knigi : Vi︠a︡tka i “ne-sovremennostʹ” v russkoĭ kulʹture petrovskogo vremeni / D.K. Uo. (OCLC #52977300)
When American authors write books in different languages (and alphabets), their name may appear on the piece in a different form, which is what is transcribed into the statement of responsibility:
245 10 ǂa Istorii︠a︡ odnoĭ knigi :ǂb Vi︠a︡tka i "ne-sovremennostʹ" v russkoĭ kulʹture
petrovskogo vremeni / ǂc D.K. Uo.
The more common (authorized) form of the author’s name is also recorded as an access point:
100 1_ ǂa Waugh, Daniel Clarke.
At the BIBFRAME meeting, we discussed: why do we do both a transcribed version and a link to an access point for only some fields (title, author, subject) and not others (place of publication, publisher). My theory is that it is habit: in card catalogs, we didn’t have “publisher” cards, so there was no reason to record what would be a “heading” for those cards. Would those headings/links be useful now?
Do I look skinny in this house? : how to feel great in your home using design psychology / Kelli Ellis. (OCLC #871333825)
Last week I attended the NOTSL meeting Don’t Be Afraid of the Big, Bad BIBFRAME (Or Linked Data!).
While looking at the BIBFRAME editor, we discussed the decision to consider the Library of Congress Call Number to be associated with the Instance, but the Dewey Decimal Classification Number to be associated with the Work. I had not made that distinction before, that an LC call number was intended to be a unique shelving location, as in:
050 _4 ǂa NK2113 ǂb .E45 2014
where the Dewey number recorded is typically a non-unique subject classification of the work, as in:
082 04 ǂa 747 ǂ2 23
What do you think?