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 one line of code to strip out the copyright symbol. However, depending

Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

Regardless of Berne convention and laws, don't confuse the surrogate for the item described. I don't think I copyright statement on the _cataloging record_ but refering to the copyright of the item described ever played any legal role in establishing copyright on the item described, even in

Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

When you are entering both a publication date and a copyright day in either 260 or two 264 fields, and you are coding the publication date in Date1 and the copyright date in the 008 Date2, Date Type must be 't' because: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008a.html t - Publication date and

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 the field explicitly states that this is a copyright date, it does not state what type of copyright date is being recorded. There are two types of copyright date--copyright for text (the (c) date) and the phonogram copyright date

[RDA-L] thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

I very much appreciate your detailed reply. I want to hasten to clarify that I wasn’t trying to point out any institution as doing anything wrong or nonstandard. Merely citing an example (of a record that looked to be done by the rules but rules that were confusing me). Getting the

Re: [RDA-L] thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

Oh, no offense taken--i just noticed that it was a Stanford University Press book so i figured it was one of our CIP contributions. And it was probably done under the original test policy. And, i should point out, that not everyone at Stanford is necessarily following the same policy--our

Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date was also in that field, which you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a copyright date without the symbol or words to that effect. greta - Original Message - From: Nancy Lorimer nlori...@stanford.edu To: Resource Description

[RDA-L] Carrier type Flipchart

In our regional cataloging experts group, we were dicussing RDA carrier types yesterday. We were completely mystified why flip charts warrant a carrier type of their own (flipchart). We found it very hard to imagine any library or other institution collecting flip charts, in the first place.

[RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record

Greetings- When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and that, with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description, hybrid

Re: [RDA-L] Carrier type Flipchart

I think it refers to a type of childrens' (or educational) resource that is published and intended to be used in the classroom. E.g.: http://www.staples.com/Calendar-Time-Sing-Along-Flip-Chart-and-CD/product_753900?cid=PS:GooglePLAs:753900KPID=753900 Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator

Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record

Rick McRae wrote: When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and that, with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description,

Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record

Thank you, Kevin-- your response is most informative. I'll bring up the advisability of separate records at a future in-house meeting, but for the time being, seeing that we're wouldn't be out of line by what we're doing presently, we'll stay the course until a future decision reverses our

Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record

Rich McRae asked: When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate mani= festations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliogr= aphic records should be created? ... That is my understanding, just as it was mandated by AACR2. So far, so far as I know,

[RDA-L] GMD revisited

Please excuse the cross-posting ... Dear All, It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as a replacement for the GMD. I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really