Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement
When all elements are lacking, and there's no RDA provision, I suppose you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR: Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d. Until no mixed record or coding is allowed, or a 264 5 should come along. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca 12/6/2013 10:46 AM RDA 1.3 (for the core elements) – include the elements only if they “are applicable and readily ascertainable.” For these publisher-related elements though RDA does indicate the use of the “… not identified” placeholders. These signal at a minimum that the resource can be determined as being published but the place and name of publisher cannot be determined. The distribution and manufacturing data is triggered as core in the absence of identified publisher information, so that at least some useful identifying information must be recorded if applicable and readily ascertainable for published resources. New to RDA is the split of the AACR2’s date of manufacture into two elements. The date of manufacture of an unpublished (i.e. one-of-a-kind, not distributed, etc.) resource is now Date of Production. Two new elements responding to archives and museum needs have been added to the Production Statement and these are: Place of Production and Producer’s Name (these are not core elements). AACR2 1.4C8 and 1.4D8 prohibited recording the place and name of a producer for unpublished resources, and recycled the date of manufacture as the date for the production of an unpublished resource. RDA takes AACR2’s division of published vs unpublished resources and crafts a new element, Production Statement, out of that. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Seth Huber Sent: December-06-13 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement Hi all, Given that RDA seems to have a hierarchy for publication, etc., information--take publication first, distribution if that is absent, and manufacture if distribution is also not present--what do we do if none of these are present and nothing can be supplied from outside the resource? It seems that the rules and the PCC policy statements are quiet on this possibility. Seth Huber University Library Specialist Western Carolina University Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement
If it’s published, and there is no information at all then this is all that can be recorded in RDA for the subelements of the Publisher statement: Publication Statement: [place of publication not identified] : [publisher not identified], [date of publication not identified] The only case, I think, when no element need be recorded for either published or unpublished resources is for a naturally occurring object. AACR2 specifically excludes any data in this case (AACR2 10.4F2), and RDA has this covered in the “not applicable” clause for core elements. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jack Wu Sent: December-06-13 11:07 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement When all elements are lacking, and there's no RDA provision, I suppose you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR: Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d. Until no mixed record or coding is allowed, or a 264 5 should come along. Jack Jack Wu Franciscan University of Steubenville Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.camailto:tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca 12/6/2013 10:46 AM RDA 1.3 (for the core elements) – include the elements only if they “are applicable and readily ascertainable.” For these publisher-related elements though RDA does indicate the use of the “… not identified” placeholders. These signal at a minimum that the resource can be determined as being published but the place and name of publisher cannot be determined. The distribution and manufacturing data is triggered as core in the absence of identified publisher information, so that at least some useful identifying information must be recorded if applicable and readily ascertainable for published resources. New to RDA is the split of the AACR2’s date of manufacture into two elements. The date of manufacture of an unpublished (i.e. one-of-a-kind, not distributed, etc.) resource is now Date of Production. Two new elements responding to archives and museum needs have been added to the Production Statement and these are: Place of Production and Producer’s Name (these are not core elements). AACR2 1.4C8 and 1.4D8 prohibited recording the place and name of a producer for unpublished resources, and recycled the date of manufacture as the date for the production of an unpublished resource. RDA takes AACR2’s division of published vs unpublished resources and crafts a new element, Production Statement, out of that. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Seth Huber Sent: December-06-13 9:49 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement Hi all, Given that RDA seems to have a hierarchy for publication, etc., information--take publication first, distribution if that is absent, and manufacture if distribution is also not present--what do we do if none of these are present and nothing can be supplied from outside the resource? It seems that the rules and the PCC policy statements are quiet on this possibility. Seth Huber University Library Specialist Western Carolina University Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement
NO, NO, NO!!! (Yes, the vehemence is intentional and warranted at the gross contravention of RDA's stipulations in this matter.) RDA explicitly eliminates the use of AACR2's Latin abbreviations of [S.l. : s.n.]. The use of [n.d.] from AACR1 was eliminated in AACR2. There is provision in RDA to address the question at hand raised by Seth Huber. Per RDA 2.8.2.6, 2.8.4.7, and 2.8.6.6, these are replaced with [Place of publication not identified], [publisher not identified], and [date of publication not identified]. These are the ... not identified placeholders referenced by Thomas Brenndorfer in his earlier reply. John Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote: When all elements are lacking, and there's no RDA provision, I suppose you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR: Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d. Until no mixed record or coding is allowed, or a 264 5 should come along. Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca 12/6/2013 10:46 AM RDA 1.3 (for the core elements) – include the elements only if they “are applicable and readily ascertainable.” For these publisher-related elements though RDA does indicate the use of the “… not identified” placeholders. These signal at a minimum that the resource can be determined as being published but the place and name of publisher cannot be determined. [snip] *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Seth Huber Given that RDA seems to have a hierarchy for publication, etc., information--take publication first, distribution if that is absent, and manufacture if distribution is also not present--what do we do if none of these are present and nothing can be supplied from outside the resource? It seems that the rules and the PCC policy statements are quiet on this possibility.
Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement
Forgot, that WAS the good old days. Jack Myers, John mye...@union.edu 12/6/2013 11:31 AM NO, NO, NO!!! (Yes, the vehemence is intentional and warranted at the gross contravention of RDA's stipulations in this matter.) RDA explicitly eliminates the use of AACR2's Latin abbreviations of [S.l. : s.n.]. The use of [n.d.] from AACR1 was eliminated in AACR2. There is provision in RDA to address the question at hand raised by Seth Huber. Per RDA 2.8.2.6, 2.8.4.7, and 2.8.6.6, these are replaced with [Place of publication not identified], [publisher not identified], and [date of publication not identified]. These are the ... not identified placeholders referenced by Thomas Brenndorfer in his earlier reply. John Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 ( tel:518-388-6623) mye...@union.edu On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Wu j...@franciscan.edu wrote: When all elements are lacking, and there's no RDA provision, I suppose you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR: Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d. Until no mixed record or coding is allowed, or a 264 5 should come along. Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca 12/6/2013 10:46 AM RDA 1.3 (for the core elements) – include the elements only if they “are applicable and readily ascertainable.” For these publisher-related elements though RDA does indicate the use of the “… not identified” placeholders. These signal at a minimum that the resource can be determined as being published but the place and name of publisher cannot be determined. [snip] From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Seth Huber Given that RDA seems to have a hierarchy for publication, etc., information--take publication first, distribution if that is absent, and manufacture if distribution is also not present--what do we do if none of these are present and nothing can be supplied from outside the resource? It seems that the rules and the PCC policy statements are quiet on this possibility. Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement
Jack Wu said:
you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR:
Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d.
AACR2 did no have n.d.. One was supposed to guess, even [19--?].
RDA provides [Place of publication not identified] etc. Our
cataloguers are instructed to never use those long uninformative
phrases, but rather to make a wild guess, e.g., in our case usually
[Canada?]. The cataloguer with item in hand or PDF on screen is
better placed to guess than the patron at the catalogue.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Publication/distribution/manufacturer statement
Of course Mac and others are right, there's no n.d. in AACR2, and to guess a
place and a date is better than no information and Not Identified. Still I
wonder, if I know just 1 place and 1 date, as with much legacy data, whether
they are of publication, or distribution, or just copyright will make any
difference in searching.
Jack
J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca 12/6/2013 1:00 PM
Jack Wu said:
you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR:
Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d.
AACR2 did no have n.d.. One was supposed to guess, even [19--?].
RDA provides [Place of publication not identified] etc. Our
cataloguers are instructed to never use those long uninformative
phrases, but rather to make a wild guess, e.g., in our case usually
[Canada?]. The cataloguer with item in hand or PDF on screen is
better placed to guess than the patron at the catalogue.
____ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Scanned by for virus, malware and spam by SCM appliance
