On the OLAC list, there has been a discussion of 264 coding for
manufactured equipment and naturally occurring objects.
It seems to me that these are not published, so that for equipment 264
3 would be the proper indicator, and for naturally occurring objects
264 2, in order to have the
Adam responded to my statement:
RDA as now written does not require a not identified publisher
statement (264 1) when recording producer (264 0)
That is because it would be contrary to the definitions, Mac.
Production in RDA is limited only to unpublished resources. It can't
I think technically it is NOT possible to use 264 _2 and 264 _3 with 264 _0
in an RDA-coded record, because distribution and manufacture elements in RDA
are defined as pertaining only to published resources. This may be an area
in RDA that needs revision, but the definitions given in RDA are
Adam said:
I think technically it is NOT possible to use 264 _2 and 264 _3 with 264 _0
in an RDA-coded record
Why would one wish to do that? Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a
rock. All we need is 264 2 for the seller of the rock. Like
manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring
4 matches
Mail list logo
