I agree that it would be good for manuscripts catalogers to include 264 -0 $a (place of production) and $b (producer's name) if the information is available, but remember that in RDA (just as in AACR2) only the date of production element is core in a production statement (see 2.7.6; 2.7.2 (place) and 2.7.4 (producer's name) are not marked core), so only the date (264 -0 $c) would be required, the same as under AACR2.
Bob Robert L. Maxwell Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form Authorities Librarian 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568 "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 3:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 field I asked: >> I wonder if any will use the 264 2nd indicator for producer in DVD >> records for the original producer of a motion picture. Adam answered: >I hope not, as this would be an incorrect use. RDA defines production as >having to do with unpublished resources ... It would be good for manuscripts to have 26X $a$b information as they have not done in the past. I suspect there will be incorrect usage; remember the donor of a item was entered in DDC's "Contributor". People tend to take labels literally. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([email protected]) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
