534 or 7xx is better than nothing but I continue to think the old way (using 533 for the reproduction information, 260--now 264, for the publication information of the original) puts the bibliographical information that users are interested in where they are most likely to look.
In my experience microform is a format of last resort for users; if anything, they want to know that something is in microform so they can filter it out of their search results. The information users need to find and select the resource they want is the publication information of what was filmed, not who did the filming. I know that some next-generation discovery system is supposed to take care of all of this, but we ain't there yet, and when we get there we'll still have to worry about converting all of the records done "incorrectly", likely through some conversion process. On the CONSERlist there has been discussion of this same issue and the point has been raised: if we can (perhaps for slightly different reasons) countenance a "provider neutral" practice with respect to electronic reproductions, could we think of microfilm reproductions along the same lines? --Ben ________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff [asch...@u.washington.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:29 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA Field 046 could be used to record the creation date of the work, and could certainly be indexed and displayed. You could also still use field 534 in RDA I think. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Flynn, Emily wrote: > With RDA, reproductions in a new format (such as microform) shift cataloging > focus to the manifestation in hand rather than the original content the new > format conveys. The same was true in the switch from AACR(1) to AACR2 but an > LCRI allowed for the use of a 533 reproduction note enabling the cataloger to > catalog the original material's information. However, there doesn't seem to > be a LCPS, at least not yet, to the same effect. > > Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the > original only gets noted in a 776 field, where it seems that the original > dates of the material won't be indexed for user searches in the catalog. The > 264, 300, and fixed fields, etc., will contain the publisher/producer of the > current microform manifestation in hand, losing the date and publisher of the > original content held in such fields previously (via the LCRI). Also along > these lines, could names and corporate bodies associated with the original > still be given access points in 7xx fields and if so what's the best $e/$4 > for them...bibliographical antecedent? How do users find the 1500 rare book > that's now scanned to microform in 2012 or a government report released in > 2009 but filmed as a reproduction in 2013? > > Has anyone else dealt with this? Perhaps this will be resolved somewhat, for > rare books at least, when DCRM(B) new guidelines are released for RDA. Is > there other ways to include the original content in the bibliographical > record of the new format's manifestation better so as not to lose the essence > of the content when it's viewed? > > Thanks! > Emily > > Emily Flynn, Catalog Librarian, Content Operations > ProQuest | 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346 | Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 > USA | +1 734 707 2422 > emily.fl...@proquest.com<mailto:emily.fl...@proquest.com> > www.proquest.com > > ProQuest ... Start here. 2012 InformationWeek 500 Top Innovator | 2012 > Detroit Free Press Michigan Top Workplace > > >
