Martin Kelleher wrote: ...doesn't 264 1 pretty much replicate 260, however?
--------------------------------------------------- In a simple scenario, yes, since we usually record publication statements from AACR2 and prior cataloging codes there. BUT, the scope of field 260 and the corresponding cataloging rules, is not just publication statements but of Publication, Distribution, etc., Statements. "Pretty much" is not adequate for the demands RDA is anticipated to serve. Basically, the round hole represented by field 260 is large enough to accommodate the smaller square publication statement peg we have routinely shoved into it. In reformulating the rules, we have now specified 4 separate shapes for our pegs for the purpose of being able to distinguish each corresponding statement. This then requires us to have holes specifically shaped to correspond to these new pegs. This issue was explored thoroughly in discussion paper and proposal submitted to MARBI. The new 264 field with its indicators to specify the nature of the statement was the best option (or least worst, if you will). Field 260, as currently formulated, does not serve RDA's degree of specificity at all, as evidenced by the findings of the RDA test. Amping it up with additional subfields only made the field and its data murkier. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu<mailto:mye...@union.edu> 518-388-6623
