Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Saunders, Mary
Thanks to all who responded. I have decided to make a single 264 1 [Charleston, SC?] : $b Author's name, $c [2013] As I feel my way along with RDA, I am truly grateful for this discussion list! Mary Saunders, Cataloger Maine State Library 64 State House

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Patricia Mary Gierke
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Saunders, Mary Sent: 03 July 2013 01:45 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Thanks to all who responded. I have decided to make a single 264 1 [Charleston, SC?] : $b Author's name, $c [2013] As I feel my way

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Adam Schiff
-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Hi Mary I agree wholeheartedly – ever SO grateful for this list ! And, if I may say so, I think your final decision is SPOT ON! I believe we are encouraged to SUPPLY a place of publication or probable place whenever possible….which is what you’ve

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Adam Schiff
Oops, I meant if you are supplying a place, you wouldn’t use a postal abbreviation. From: Adam Schiff Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:39 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question It would not be correct to use “SC” in your place of publication. If you

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Patricia Sayre-McCoy
Library University of Chicago 773-702-9620 p...@uchicago.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:43 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Robert Maxwell
Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Patricia Sayre-McCoy Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 9:52 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Per Appendix B.1 state names are included in the “approved” abbreviations. And the LC-PCC Policy

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Mary Saunders said: I have decided to make a single 264 1 [Charleston, SC?] : $b Author's name, $c [2013] This would satisfy your patrons' needs better than the other options. But a postal code should not be provided in brackets. Correctly it would by South Carolina, or as a local option,

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Patricia Sayre-McCoy
and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:02 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Appendix B does not apply to “transcribed elements” (see B.4). The Pubication Statement is a transcribed element (see

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Adam Schiff
-L] 264 question The information in the publication appears as “Charleston, SC”. Aren’t we supposed to transcribe it as it appears? Mary Saunders, Cataloger Maine State Library 64 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0064

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Liptack, Vanessa
Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Patricia Sayre-McCoy Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 9:52 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Per Appendix B.1 state names are included in the “approved

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Joan Wang
Of *Robert Maxwell *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:02 AM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question ** ** Appendix B does not apply to “transcribed elements” (see B.4). The Pubication Statement is a transcribed element (see 2.8.1.4). Also B.4 instructs

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Joan Wang
** ** *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.caRDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] *On Behalf Of *Robert Maxwell *Sent:* Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:02 AM *To:* RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Adam Schiff
: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 10:09 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question I'm confused as to why rda has an appendix for abbreviations including geographic locations.. Anyone know when we use these? I assumed we we once again using them for place of publication? Anyone

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread Dana Van Meter
Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam Schiff Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 1:18 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Yes, but the information you have is for the place of manufacture

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-03 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Dana said: I feel that in this case it would be very helpful if there was another example under Rule 2.8.2.6.2 with a state name spelled out You transcribe in 264$a what is on the item, and more often than not, the jurisdiction is abbreviated. If supplying in brackets, spell it out. NEVER

[RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-02 Thread Saunders, Mary
I have a self-published monograph which contains only this publication information: Made in the USA, Charleston, SC, 07 June 2013. Do I make a 264 1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] and a 264 3 Charleston, SC : $b [Manufacturer not

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-02 Thread Adam L. Schiff
That is certainly one correct possible way to do this. Your other option would be to take a best guess at the place of publication and then you wouldn't need the second 264. Two possibilities: 264 _1 [Charleston, South Carolina?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] or 264 _1 [United

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-02 Thread Benjamin A Abrahamse
-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question That is certainly one correct possible way to do this. Your other option would be to take a best guess at the place of publication and then you wouldn't need the second 264. Two possibilities: 264 _1 [Charleston, South Carolina?] : $b

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-02 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Mary Saunders said: I have a self-published monograph... As you say, it is self published. The author is the publisher. So: 264 1 $a[Charleston, South Carolina?] :$bJoe Blow,$c[2013] Do I make a 264 1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [Publish= er not identified], $c

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-02 Thread Ford Davey
: 02 July 2013 17:53 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 264 question Mary Saunders said: I have a self-published monograph... As you say, it is self published. The author is the publisher. So: 264 1 $a[Charleston, South Carolina?] :$bJoe Blow,$c[2013] Do I make

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

2013-07-02 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Adam Schiff posted: 264 _1 [Charleston, South Carolina?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] In this case, the publisher IS identified. It's the authhor. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question for self published item

2013-07-02 Thread J. McRee Elrod
I said: 264 _1 [Charleston, South Carolina?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] In this case, the publisher IS identified. It's the author. For self published items, Lubetsky would have had us say The Author. Later we would have entered the author's name with given name(s) reduced