...@stanford.edu
To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Cc: Greta de Groat gdegr...@stanford.edu
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:50:06 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I will add one thing to Greta's
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:41 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Benjamin A Abrahamse
Envoyé : 31 janvier 2013 12:59
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I'm curious if people who oppose the use of t (pub date/copyright date
PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.camailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I'm hung up on the RDA instruction for recording a copyright date as a symbol
or spelled out element conjoined to a text string otherwise known as a date
am
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I agree with Jenny: I would love to know the reasoning behind this. As
for machine actionable: although I’m no great programmer, I do know that
anyone building something using the copyright date would have to insert
at least
: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in
OCLC: If you're using 264s, and the date of publication and the date of
copyright
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:29:20 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in OCLC:
If you're using 264s, and the date of publication and the date of copyright are
the same, which
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would
like to offer a little in the way of explanation.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
FOGLER/LTSC patricia.fog...@us.af.mil
To: Greta de Groat gdegr...@stanford.edu, Resource Description and Access
/ Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:53:13 AM
Subject: thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Cc: Greta de Groat gdegr...@stanford.edu
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:50:06 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I will add one thing to Greta's very clear explanation.
While
, January 28, 2013 2:58 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Patricia Folger wrote:
The former coding in OCLC looks like overkill -- How
useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s have
duplicate dates in the 008
: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I'm hung up on the RDA instruction for recording a copyright date as a symbol
or spelled out element conjoined to a text string otherwise known as a date.
It seems to me, that here we have an excellent effort to carry our data from
d'origine-
De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11
USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
Envoyé : 28 janvier 2013 13:12
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse
Patricia asked:
Do we advise copy catalogers to edit to 264 or let all variations pass if
essentially correct for when they were cataloged (as best they can tell!)
We will instruct that 264 4 be deleted if the $c is the same as 264
1, that date type be s, and only date 1 be coded, whether
I have found this 264 _1 with 264 _4 coding to be a major time consumer
when using RDA. For my local system, I must now copy what I put in 264 _4,
e.g. ©2010 into 264 _1, delete the former, and then download. I fail to see
what the repetition of what I put into these two MARC fields accomplishes
15 matches
Mail list logo