Welcome to the discussion. I have made a few recent posts on this, not necessarily with regard to RDA, but with whole use of ISBNs and dates, etc.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Bernadette Mary O'Reilly < bernadette.orei...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear colleagues,**** > > ** ** > > Please could I ask for views on the following problem for RDA/MARC records? > **** > > ** ** > > We normally expect the date in 008/07-10 to correspond with that in 260 $c > (or 264_1 $c).**** > > ** ** > > Publishers are required to assign new ISBNs to resources whenever their > cover changes, and in most cases (except for the first paperback > corresponding to a hardback issue) this means a new record. But the > internal information (t.p., t.p. verso, colophon and suchlike) is often > re-used without alteration, so that the internal date (and sometimes the > internal ISBN) does not correspond with that which the publisher associates > with the new ISBN and which is used by the ISBN agency and book trade and a > wide range of readers.**** > > ** ** > > When this happens we treat the internal date as incorrect, and as far as I > know the other British Legal Deposit Libraries do the same. In AACR2/MARC > the result might be something like this: **** > > ** ** > > 008/06-14 r20122010**** > > 260 __ $c2010 [i.e. 2012]**** > > 500__$aT.p. verso information is that of an earlier issue. ISBN of this > issue from back cover. Date of this issue from ISBN Agency website (viewed > 1/8/12).**** > > ** ** > > This allows us to put the actual date of issue in 008 and still maintain > correspondence with 260 $c. But RDA does not allow us to enter corrections > in the publication date element, so this information would appear only in a > 500 note and there would be no 008/260$c correspondence.**** > > ** ** > > One solution would be to stop making new records for reissues which are > internally unchanged, and to add all ISBNs, qualified by date, to a single > record. This is supported by the principle that difference of binding does > not require a new record, and it would simplify circulation for libraries > which need multiple copies of core texts and do not want them to be spread > over multiple records just because of a change of cover. However, it is > often difficult for a cataloguer to establish whether a new issue really > does incorporate changes, and I don’t think there is much support for this > approach. It would also reduce compatibility between library and book > trade data. **** > > ** ** > > If we continue to make new records for new ISBNs, is it preferable to **** > > (i) use the date associated with the ISBN in 008/07-10 and have no > correspondence between 008/07-10 and 260/264 $c; or**** > > (ii) use the internal date in both places, perhaps with a note such as > ‘This ISBN associated with a 2012 reissue’?**** > > ** ** > > Best wishes,**** > > Bernadette**** > > ** ** > > ******************* > Bernadette O'Reilly > Catalogue Support Librarian **** > > 01865 2-77134 **** > > Bodleian Libraries, > Osney One Building > Osney Mead > Oxford OX2 0EW.**** > > ******************* **** > > ** ** > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
