This is a display issue that should be handled by the ILS setup.
If the distributor information is displayed in a single line, along with the
publisher, etc. information, as ISBD requires, then it is logical to retain
the words or phrases indicating functions other than publishing, as per
AACR:
260 $a Boulder : $b East European Monographs ; $a New York : $b
Distributed by Columbia University Press, $c 2010.
Displays as:
Publication, etc.: Boulder : East European Monographs ; New York :
Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2010.
If the distributor information is in a separate MARC field (264_2) and is
therefore not displayed in a single line, then there should not be any point
in including the Distributed by wording, since the ILS can be set up to
display the separate field labeled according to the second indicator:
264 1 $a London ; $a New York : $b I.B. Tauris, $c 2012.
264 2 $a New York : $b Distributed in the United States and Canada
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, $c [2012]
Displays as:
Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
Distribution: New York : Distributed in the United States and Canada
exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]
The only reason for not displaying the field label for separate 264, is to
try to make it look like ISBD:
Displays as:
Publication: London ; New York : I.B. Tauris, 2012.
New York : Distributed in the United States and
Canada exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, [2012]
But this doesnt display as per ISBD anyway, so it does seem that it might
be time to treat these statements as separate and distinct, in which case I
agree that the RDA instructions could be changed for both Distribution and
Manufacture, with the addition of (other than solely distributing) and
(other than solely manufacturing)
OR, to simplify things further, and perhaps even better yet, we should get
rid of the (other than solely publishing) instruction at 2.8.4.4 and just
apply the principle of representation (0.4.3.4) to put down what we see
for publisher data also.
Deborah
P.S. It is good to know about A.7B1 after all these years (how did I miss
that??) but I still wonder what the rationale was for this capitalization,
given the way it was meant to be displayed, in a string.
- - - - - - - -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
<mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com> debo...@marcofquality.com
<http://www.marcofquality.com> www.marcofquality.com
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of rball...@frontier.com
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:23 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
Joan, I disagree with your proposed rule change only because, unless one's
local system is set up to specifically display something to the user that
indicates that they are seeing a distribution statement (based on indicator
2), the user might wonder why there are two separate statements with no
seeming difference. If the "distributed by" statement is included in $b of
the 264, the role of the distributor is clear.
Thanks,
Kevin Roe
Supervisor, Media Processing
Fort Wayne Community Schools
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
From: Joan Wang <jw...@illinoisheartland.org>
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Capitalization in 2.9.4.4
I look at corresponding examples in AACR2, they are capitalized.
Also, the following examples in RDA 2.9.4.4 are misleading. The recording or
supplying of the function, such as distributed by and [distributor], is not
necessary in RDA records. The second indicator 2 of 264 fields already
indicates its function.
Distributed by Independent Publishers Group
Distribution by: MapArt Publishing Corporation
Distributed by Coach House Records Ltd.
Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid & Development [distributor]
Guild Sound and Vision [distributor]
The rule should be changed like this:
2.9.4.4 Record words or phrases indicating the function (other than solely
distributing) performed by a person, family, or corporate body as they
appear on the source of information.
My opinion!
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
<wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote:
It beats me why the examples in 2.9.4.4 (and other similar rules, e.g.
2.10.4.4) are all capitalized, e.g.:
Distributed by New York Graphic Society
Sold by Longman
I cannot find any justification for this in appendix A. It's certainly not
mentioned among the elements where the first word must always be
capitalized.
Corresponding examples in the ISBD consolidated (4.2.5) aren't capitalized,
e.g.:
distributed by Harvard University Press
to be sold by Jas. Gardner
So, is there something I've overlooked, or is this a mistake in RDA?
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
--
Zhonghong (Joan) Wang, Ph.D.
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax
