摘要
比较RDA与ISBD的内容和媒介类型,指出两者的内容类型/限定均在很大程度上源自《RDA/ONIX资源类型框架》,而《RDA中的内容与载体术语》中的"宽泛内容"构成了RDA内容类型的骨架;两者的媒介类型均依据《RDA/ONIX资源类型框架》的中介工具属性。后组式的ISBD内容形式/内容限定优于先组式的RDA内容类型。在内容部分还需要增加连续性资源的属性。对我国未来编目标准中的内容和媒介类型制订提出四点建议:选用通用术语,内容类型采用后组方式,增加"延伸"属性容纳连续性资源,出版界沟通协调。表4。参考文献12。
This paper compares content and media types in RDA and ISBD. Content type of RDA and content qualification of ISBD come from RDA/ONIX Framework of Resource Categorization to a great extent. Broad content in Content and Carrier Terms in RDA constitutes the framework of RDA＇s content type. Media types of RDA and ISBD are based on the at- tributes of the intermediation tool in the Framework. Post-coordination in ISBD＇s content form and qualification is better than coordination in RDA＇s content type. Including attributes for continuing resources in content type is necessary. Four suggestions for new cataloging rules in China are： terms of common usage, post-coordination in content type, Extension Mode for continuing resources, and communication with the publishing community. 4 tabs. 12 refs.
出处
《中国图书馆学报》
CSSCI
北大核心
2012年第4期55-62,共8页
Journal of Library Science in China
基金
国家社会科学基金项目"<资源描述与检索>的中文化及其应用研究"(编号:11BTQ004)研究成果之一
