The guidelines were published in June and can be found at http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/264-Guidelines.doc.
The announcement of the publication of the guidelines appeared on several lists, but appears not to have been announced on RDA-L. There is also a notice in OCLC Technical Bulletin 261 http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/261/ (under "new fields, subfields, and indicators") OCLC's initial suggestion to postpone is no longer in force as far as I know. 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. From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kadri, Carolyn J Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 12:16 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 vs 264 fields Also, even though OCLC has given permission to use the 264 now, the advice I am getting from OCLC is that it might be better to postpone using it until more clarification is available to those of us out in the trenches about how it is to be applied. I am not sure where that clarification of application will come from (possibly the PCC?). Accordingly, I am not using 264 in RDA records until I understand its application better and I can do that because we are not a PCC library. I invite dissenting opinions. Carolyn Kadri Head Cataloger Special Collections Cataloger University of Texas at Arlington From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]<mailto:[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA]> On Behalf Of Joan Wang Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 12:35 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA<mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 vs 264 fields That is true. We also have some questions on these PCC records. They even do not have relationship terms. My feeling is that they just changed abbreviations to full names, and added three 33x new fields. That is far away from my understanding on FRBR. I did expect a comprehensive description of the four entities in Group 1 and various relationships. In particular, for the relationships between works, expressions, manifestations, and items, we need to do lots of homework. If you look at examples in RDA Toolkit, you will see 264 instead of 260. These examples look quite good. Joan On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Buzz Haughton <bongob...@gmail.com<mailto:bongob...@gmail.com>> wrote: I just now did a search of Connexion for: dx:rda/bks/2013 and found every record I looked at, including PCC records, with the 260. So something isn't right here. On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Joan Wang <jw...@illinoisheartland.org<mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote: This is also my understanding. According to the PCC guideline, 264 field should appear in all new RDA records. Joan On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Mills, Deborah <deborah_mi...@ago.net<mailto:deborah_mi...@ago.net>> wrote: So is the 260 field now obsolete, and won't be used at all in RDA? Instead will we use one or more 264 fields? Deborah Mills Cataloguer E.P. Taylor Research Library Art Gallery of Ontario 317 Dundas Street West Toronto, Ontario Canada M5T 1G4 e-mail: deborah_mi...@ago.net<mailto:deborah_mi...@ago.net> ph: 416-979-6660 ext. 390<tel:416-979-6660%20ext.%20390> fax: 416-979-6602<tel:416-979-6602> -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x209<tel:618.656.3216x209> 618.656.9401Fax -- Buzz Haughton 1861 Pebblewood Dr Sacramento CA 95833 USA (916) 468-9027<tel:%28916%29%20468-9027> bongob...@gmail.com<mailto:bongob...@gmail.com> -- Joan Wang Cataloger -- CMC Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office) 6725 Goshen Road Edwardsville, IL 62025 618.656.3216x209 618.656.9401Fax
