Mike McReynolds asked:
>Can anyone explain why the information presented in the 264 field is
>considered preferable or more >informative than the information that
>has long been contained in the 260 fields?
In a majority of cases it is not. On the other hand, we now have 264
0 for full information concerning unpublished material; in 260 only
the date was recorded. What was 260 for publisher is now 264 1. In
addition we now have 264 2 for distributor; distributor was included
in a single 260 with publisher without special subfield codes. We
now have 264 3 for manufacturer; which was 260 $e$f$g. We now have
264 4 for copyright date (which we only supply if different from
publication date; in 260 copyright substituted for publication date,
or following if different.
Of these we find 264 0. 2, and 3 improvements, but they could have
been achieved by adding 1st indicators to 260. We find 264 4 an
unneeded complication. If the distinction was needed apart from a
copyright sign, a subfield could have been added to 260.
For consistency, I hope we will stick to 260 in AACR2 records, 264 in
RDA records.
Field 260 was made repeating with first indicators for middle and
current publishers. Field 264 has second indicators for function.
The same could have been accomplished by adding second indicators to
e260.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
