I think technically it is NOT possible to use 264 _2 and 264 _3 with 264 _0
in an RDA-coded record, because distribution and manufacture elements in RDA
are defined as pertaining only to published resources. This may be an area
in RDA that needs revision, but the definitions given in RDA are quite
clear.
2.9.1.1 A distribution statement is a statement identifying the place or
places of distribution, distributor or distributors, and date or dates of
distribution of a resource in a published form.
2.10.1.1 A manufacture statement is a statement identifying the place or
places of manufacture, manufacturer or manufacturers, and date or dates of
manufacture of a resource in a published form.
Manufacture statements include statements relating to the printing,
duplicating, casting, etc., of a resource in a published form.
Adam Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
-----Original Message-----
From: J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:01 PM
To: asch...@u.washington.edu
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA imprint revision
Adam responded to my statement:
RDA as now written does not require a "not identified" publisher
statement (264 1) when recording producer (264 0)
That is because it would be contrary to the definitions, Mac.
"Production" in RDA is limited only to unpublished resources. It can't
simultaneously be published (264 _1) and unpublished (264 _0).
Exactly!! That's my point!!!
iPads and rocks are not published either. It should also be possible
to use 264 3 and 264 2 without a 264 1, just as it is for 264 0.
Resources may be manufactured or distributed without being published,
just as they may be produced without being published. We should not
stretch the meaning of "publish" beyond all reason.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
