Buzz Haughton said:
>abandonment of 260 and going to this more complicated way to expressing
>publication/copyright year as adding anything in information to the user.
Agreed that it would have been better in terms of consistency with
legagy records to have added 2nd indicators to 260, rather than to
create 264.
The one good change is production information for unpublished
resources, but SLC has been doing that (contra AACR2) for years.
Since photocopies appeared, and now that theses are printed from
computers, it is silly to pretend a thesis is a manuscript.
>In the public library where I now volunteer as a retired cataloger, I
>must retrofit each and every RDA record I create to eliminate the $c
>in the second 264 and put it into the first; lots of extra manual
>work ...
Why was $c omitted from 264 1? Publication year should be guessed if
not on the item. By "second" 264 I assume you mean 264 4 (not 264 2
distributor). While we do not plan to enter 264 4 $c if the same as
264 1 $c, why must it be removed?
>I also must re-add $h to all of my 245s when cataloging under RDA,
>because the collection development librarians want the format
>included in the title.
So far all of our clients but one want GMDs. I agree with your
collection development librarians. Even if [338 : 336] terms are
mapped to display at head of other data, or at end of 245$a, the terms
are too long and confusing for patrons. If displayed in tag order (as
some systems must), I agree they are useless as early warning.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
