How do you know that no one is using the 534 for reproductions right now? I use it quite frequently when cataloging reproductions of pre-twentieth cartographic materials.
Carolyn -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:44 PM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA and reproductions Not only the title of the original, but we also need to know other stuff about the original. And are we talking about the original platonic work or the original manifestation? For a book that's a reproduction we need to know the publisher and date of the manifestation that's being reproduced (which may or may not be the same as for the work), for a videorecording of a motion picture or television program (which is essentially a reproduction though it usually hasn't been defined that way), we need to know the place of production and the year of production (and apparently these are the only motion picture characteristics that hough the RDA/FRBR folks think that motion picture works have). As far as i can tell in RDA, all of the "work" stuff is supposed to be in the work record. So it's not even clear to me whether we can use the 534 for work information, which also doesn't have specific subfields for all that information anyway, so it won't map out to any future work record and can't be properly searched or limited on now (which is probably why nobody is using it for reproductions now) or in the future (unless this is one of the MARBI fast-track things that's supposed to happen) Given that authority records are sort of our de-facto work records under the present MARC regime, there isn't any place to put that information there, either. Is it supposed to be part of the "constructed" heading? If so, it sounds like you can only add this info in the case of a conflict to the heading, and though you may add it to an appropriate field in the work record, there isnt' any work record yet so you can't add it there either. The mappings in Appendix D .3.1map the date of work and date of expression to the 1xx $f, which as far as i've ever seen has aways been the date of the manifestation (as in Works and Selections in books anyway, not about how music uses this subfield). Anyway, that mapping won't correspond with present practice. 534 (misnumbered as a second iteration of 533) is mapped to related manifestation, so apparently they don't think the work information belongs there either, just the manifestation that's being reproduced. I know we're not supposed to be thinking about data structure in RDA, but since we have to still do our work in the meantime while we wait for whatever new format with theoretically be developed, there's no way that RDA is compatable with the present MARC structure. Has anybody heard what fields MARBI is looking at adding to be RDA compatable? I haven't heard anything about this for months. I thought it was supposed to be happening at Annual but apparently it got tabled until Midwinter. greta de groat Stanford University Libraries J. McRee Elrod wrote: > Carolyn said: > > >> Are some MARC tags being eliminated in RDA? I tried the MARC index >> mentioned below just to experiment with it. I put in 534 in the box >> ... >> > > RDA, like AACR2 and LAC (unlike LCRI) call for cataloguing the > reproduction at hand, which means the 534 would be needed to describe > the original. > > "RDA 2.3.1.3 > > "Facsimiles and Reproductions > > "When describing a facsimile or reproduction that has a title or > titles relating to the original manifestation as well as to the > facsimile or reproduction, record the title or titles relating to the > facsimile or reproduction. Record any title relating to the original > manifestation as a title pertaining to a related manifestation (see > 27.1)." > > But it doesn't tell you *where*, e.g., "in a note", to record the > title of the original. Presumably in MARC21 that would be 534. > > However, contrary to the rules, the only example of a reproduction at > 27.1 (to which 2.3.1.3 referes us) is for an Electronic reproduction > added to the record for the print original, which would be a 530 or > 533. > > Examples don't follow the rules. > > > __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ > ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________ >
