Mac Elrod wrote: > Ian Fairdlough posted: > > >in RDA, the instructions provide for:=0A[Place of pu>blication not > >identified] : [publisher not identified], [date of publicat>ion not > >identified] > > We would never create such a record, and would change any derived > record with this 264. Googling and clicking on "contact us" can > usually produce needed information.
But "usually" can still mean a significant number of exceptions. It's not easy finding *any* information on the web for many things that I've cataloged, such as women's liberation newsletters from the 1960s and 1970s, newspapers from the Spanish Civil War era, miscellaneous periodicals from Africa. > With the item in hand or on screen, the cataloguer is better able to > guess place, publisher, and date, than the patron at the OPAC. True. So I always try to make my best guess, even if that means the name of a country (or continent!) in the 264 $a, with a question mark after it. > This string is a long, wordy, way to add nothing to patron > information. I'm not sure what else would be better in the 264 $b, when there is absolutely nothing to be found in the resource in hand. Unfortunately, while the 264 $a will often be able to be filled in with *something*, the $b will still get that stock phrase from time to time. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library [email protected] (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
