On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:34 AM, Lisa Hill wrote: >What that means for KCLS(and likely some others on this list) is that we will >see an onslaught of records with the publication date recorded in the 264 $c >second indicator 1 instead of the 260 subfield c which is where it has been >for like a million years. >So what is everyone doing about this? Are you reingesting your records to >include the 264 $c is anyone working with ESI to ask them to develop some code >so that if there is nothing in the 260 $c the record would display the 264$c_1?
Similarly, the place of publication and publisher, 260$a and 260$b, becoming 264 _1$a$b, could impact displays and indexing/searchability of those fields. As for the date, [it may be important to consider] how is the 260$c date used compared with the 008 date 1 and date 2? Also, while 3/31/2013 is the official date for RDA implementation, the Library of Congress has started training their catalogers in groups in order to be prepared for the official implementation date, so after training, the catalogers will be creating RDA records rather than AACR2 records. Some other libraries are also contributing RDA records to OCLC. Thank you for your time, Bryan Baldus Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses 1-800-323-4241x402 [email protected]
