Deborah said:
we will be well on our way to the goal of everyone sharing new terms
globally.
Because of bilingual Canada, the same terms will not be used even
continentally, much less globally. I assume Mexico will have its own
terms on this continent.
Bibframe has the same unilingual
Tarango, Adolfo atara...@ucsd.edu wrote:
Weighing in with trepidation to comment on the part of 2.8.1.3
addressing the appearance of publication data. Note, that 2.8.1.3 states a
condition must be met, that when *bo**th* publication data of the
reproducer and the original are found on the
: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Tarango, Adolfo [atara...@ucsd.edu]
Sent: September-27-13 11:13 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Weighing in with trepidation to comment
-L] RDA local printouts
Tarango, Adolfo atara...@ucsd.edumailto:atara...@ucsd.edu wrote:
Weighing in with trepidation to comment on the part of 2.8.1.3 addressing the
appearance of publication data. Note, that 2.8.1.3 states a condition must be
met, that when both publication data
Also getting into new territory for me, would the RDA Manuscript-related
elements (RDA 3.9.2) apply for a single cataloged print-out of a published
electronic resource?
Production Method for Manuscript: printout
Scratch that idea. Better to apply the basic RDA concept of choosing the right
From: Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Also getting into new territory for me, would the RDA
Deborah said:
I agree with you, Michelle--I think we might be looking at Production =
rather than Publication + Printing. I don't think you can put the =
Publication details for the original in the record for the reproduction.
The library is neither producing, publishing, nor reproducing the
Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca
Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Deborah said:
I agree with you, Michelle--I think we might be looking at Production =
rather
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
I think in RDA you would supply:
264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified],
$c [date of publication not identified]
264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of printing
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
I agree with you, Michelle--I think we might be looking at Production rather
than Publication + Printing. I don't think you can put the Publication details
for the original in the record for the reproduction. So the question is: who
is
responsible
Adam said:
I think in RDA you would supply:
264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not
identified], $c [date of publication not identified]
264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of
printing]
But you DO know the place, publisher and date for the
-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Adam said:
I think in RDA you would supply:
264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not
identified], $c [date of publication not identified]
264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of
printing
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Mac,
I was speculating about what one would do if adhering strictly to RDA.
But I could be persuaded by Thomas Brenndorfer's argument that the
publisher of the printout is the agency that printed it out. I would also
be content with a decision to apply
Thomas quoted:
When a facsimile or reproduction has a publication statement or
statements relating to the original manifestation as well as to the
facsimile or reproduction, record the publication statement or
statements relating to the facsimile or reproduction. Record any
publication statement
be entered once in the
775 or 776.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: September-26-13 4:38 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Thomas
-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Would the scope of privately printed resources under Publication Statement in
LC-PCC PS 2.8.1.1 not also cover local printouts of a published online resource?
If an organization or individual prints out copies for local use
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 8:38 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Thomas quoted:
When a facsimile or reproduction has a publication statement or statements
@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
My question is in regard to local print reproductions (reports run off a
library printer) of a government document (public domain) PDF received (for
example) in email by a bibliographer. We get a fair number of these and I need
to figure
Michelle Cronquist posted:
The one thing that I would do differently in your record is to use 264
_0 instead of 264 _3; I donât think you can just have printing
information without production or publication information.
Certainly the 264 3 for the local printer comes after the 264 1 for
the
I really appreciate Lynn Mac's replies.
I will probably use a 2nd 264 and cite our library as manufacturer. It doesn't
display nicely but that's another issue.
So in revision I am thinking for my record:
008 Form:r dtst:s dates: 2003,
264_1 [Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania] : ǂb Army
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Cronquist, Michelle J
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:37 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Patricia
My question is in regard to local print reproductions (reports run off a
library printer) of a government document (public domain) PDF received (for
example) in email by a bibliographer. We get a fair number of these and I need
to figure this out.
In AACR2, we simply cataloged the original,
Patricia Fogler said:
In AACR2, we simply cataloged the original
Sorry, no. That was a LCRI which contradicted AACR2.
In RDA, given an 008 Ctry 264 coded for a specific library, this record
would not be one I would think another library would feel comfortable
editing for their own use.
23 matches
Mail list logo
