Mac, What about the fixed fields? How are you treating the two dates from repeating 264s then? Using "r" in DtSt or representing the original vs. microforms dates in a different way?
In the LC catalog (and as an example in their training module 4), this microform uses "r" and both dates in the 008, though it still has the 260 field when this was cataloged. <http://lccn.loc.gov/93627144> 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 www.proquest.com ProQuest ... Start here. 2012 InformationWeek 500 Top Innovator | 2012 Detroit Free Press Michigan Top Workplace >-----Original Message----- >From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access >[mailto:RDA->l...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod >Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:32 PM >To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA >Subject: Re: [RDA-L] New format reproductions and RDA >Emily Flynn said: >Using RDA for cataloging microform reproductions, this means that the >original only gets noted in a 776 field ... >There are other options, including 534 and repeating 264. >We put the original publisher in 264 1, and the micro distributor or >manufacturer in 264 2 >or 3. We tend to use 3 for microforms (since there is >physical manufacturing), and 2 for >electronic aggregators. >J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
