3.21.34.1: for internal review, a decision was made to remove this sentence pending further discussion:
Transcribe edition statements not grammatically linked to another element as individual statements. Indicate the work to which each edition statement corresponds in a Note on edition statement (see 3.26.33.1)
Previously, a suggestion had been made to record this information in successive 250 fields with $3. However, there are a few issues with including this instruction now, including:
"Grammatically linked" is not defined
This sentence contradicts the prior instruction
We have no real-world or in-text examples illustrating this
Edit: We'll also need to consider the related notes instruction, which I am also recommending deleting for now:
3.26.33 Two or more works on the preferred source of information with at least one Edition statement
3.26.33.1 If the preferred source of information bears the titles of two or more individual works contained in the manifestation, and one or more of these works has an Edition statement associated with it that is not grammatically linked to another element and has been transcribed as individual Edition statements, make a note on edition statement indicating the work to which each edition statement corresponds (see 3.21.34.1).
Example:
Note on edition statement: 4th edition of Winnipeg Manitoba street atlas, new edition of Manitoba back road atlas.
Title statement: Winnipeg & Manitoba street atlas ; Manitoba back road atlas
Edition statement (1st work): 4th edition
Edition statement (2nd work): New edition, includes street atlas
(Comment: Two works printed on inverted pages. No collective title page; individual titles transcribed from front and back cover.)
In the interest of moving forward, I am suggesting deletion from the draft, but would like to continue discussion.
Note: This issue was originally posted by @elizhobart on 11 December 2020 as a comment on issue #36, which was created as a catch-all for issues related to future development. For ease of tracking, the comments have been moved to their own individual issues and tagged as "future work."
3.21.34.1: for internal review, a decision was made to remove this sentence pending further discussion:
Previously, a suggestion had been made to record this information in successive 250 fields with $3. However, there are a few issues with including this instruction now, including:
"Grammatically linked" is not defined This sentence contradicts the prior instruction We have no real-world or in-text examples illustrating this Edit: We'll also need to consider the related notes instruction, which I am also recommending deleting for now:
In the interest of moving forward, I am suggesting deletion from the draft, but would like to continue discussion.
Note: This issue was originally posted by @elizhobart on 11 December 2020 as a comment on issue #36, which was created as a catch-all for issues related to future development. For ease of tracking, the comments have been moved to their own individual issues and tagged as "future work."