I sent this question to OCLC, but I'm on a bit of a deadline and the RDA list does seem the right place after all.
I’m back again looking at reproductions. This time I’m looking at the publisher from an RDA standpoint. My primary question (I’ve a few follow-on prepared but let’s start with the basic one as that might clear up much of my confusion.) is WHO do I consider the publisher when I am cataloging a print reproduction? Under RDA (since a reproduction record has not been issued in either cataloging format, this seemed a good title to use as an example) I'd been given to understand that one of the changes made was that the reproducer became the publisher. RDA 2.8.1.4 says Transcribe places of publication and publishers' names in the form in which they appear on the source of information. Does that refer to the original publisher on a piece? If we locally print out a report from the web, that is likely what we will have. And I hope that is what we do. So that is one question. We have the complicating situation of print reproductions from the Defense Technical Information Center that are issued with cover sheet containing DTIC address & information emblazoned on them. Example in hand is a printout of (link is minus cover sheet): http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA5144 90 I have worked up a local example of field changes in RDA (I'd be interested in thoughts on the OCLC record 610002477 listed in the 776 from anyone with access– THAT is a problem for us. When we catalog those e-works, we do upgrade the DTIC records. In the situation of a print reproduction however, we would be creating a new record & linking back to this record. [an aside question: Is there any situation in which the DTICE records are “correct” when coding themselves as publisher of a work?] Under AACR2 (when cataloging either the electronic version for our catalog or the print reproduction), we would change this 260 to reflect the Naval War College. For electronic versions, I would consider these covered by the Provider Neutral model & change the 260 back to the original publishing agency. So, does that differ for print reproductions? Would we code the 264 as below (for print)?: 264_1 ‡a Ft. Belvoir, VA : ‡b Defense Technical Information Center, ‡c [2010]. 300__ ‡a 30 pages ; ‡c 28 cm 776 08 ‡i Print reproduction (manifestation) ‡a Crowell, Richard M. ‡t War in the information age : a primer for cyberspace operations in the 21st century ‡d Newport, RI : Naval War College, 2010 ‡h 30 p. ‡w (OCoLC)610002477 OR: 264_1 |a Newport, RI : |b Naval War College, |c [2010]. I would also welcome commentary on the 776 above as well if anything looks amiss. I keep seeing (manifestation) in the 776s & frankly it seems a less than helpful addition. I'm using ‡i Print reproduction for the DTIC materials because they seem a bit more substantial somehow (paper/cover sheet) than our local printouts. Those are getting ‡i Printout of PDF file I'm delivering local training late next week, so clarification will be gratefully received. Thanks. //SIGNED// Patricia Fogler Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
