Many thanks! KN
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:43 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query Karen, You are correct. MARC field 264 is repeatable for successive publication statements (e.g., for a serial or integrating resource). For a book published simultaneously in two countries, or jointly by two publishers, it works just like the MARC 260. See: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Nelson Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:34 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query So, I get this bit now. But here's another question, can't find any clues in the resources so far. On t.p. verso of a title for which I have an RDA bib: the US and Canadian publication information. I know I do not have to include the latter, but in a Canadian university library, I still want to. Is the correct 264 as follows: 264_1$aNew York, NY :$bRandom House, Inc. ;$aToronto :$bRandom House of Canada Limited,|c[2012] Or do I use two 264's? I think the above is still correct, right? Two 264's (for publishers, that is, not for two entities performing different functions, such as pub and dist) are for multi-part & serials only? This I hope will be my last question today. I will soon be giving Mac a run for his money as most frequent poster! ;) KN From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of M. E. Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:07 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query Karen Nelson <knel...@capilanou.ca<mailto:knel...@capilanou.ca>> wrote: But I am still wondering about the issue of the author holding copyright ... does her name go in the second 264, if a second one is kept? Haven't seen it done so far. The 264 field dedicated to copyright is for the date alone--that's it. So all you'll get is: - 264 -4 $c (c)2013 See RDA 2.11 for the instructions, if you have a copy. If you want to get into the copyright weeds, there's the 542 field: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd542.html -- Mark K. Ehlert Minitex <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
