Would the scope of "privately printed resources" under Publication Statement in LC-PCC PS 2.8.1.1 not also cover local printouts of a published online resource?
If an organization or individual prints out copies for local use, and these are cataloged, then it seems who issued or released the physical resource-- the printout in this case-- should be indicated in the Publication Statement, as distinct from the original publisher, which belongs to the related manifestation as identifying information for that manifestation. What is needed is the mirror image of the relationship designators "electronic reproduction"/"electronic reproduction of (manifestation)", which only refer to a process where a digital manifestation is produced from an analog manifestation, and not the other way. Paralleling "reprint of (manifestation)" there should be something like "printout of" for the digital-to-analog reproduction. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz > Sent: September-26-13 12:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts > > I agree with you, Michelle--I think we might be looking at Production rather > than Publication + Printing. I don't think you can put the Publication details > for the original in the record for the reproduction. So the question is: who > is > responsible for making the reproduction, and is that reproduction published > (because it is intended for/capable of distribution) or not published > (therefore, produced). > > But I don't think you can have Production + Manufacture (Printing) together, > because if something is manufactured (what we think of as 'printing' when it > comes to books), it is done in quantity and therefore intended for > distribution, and therefore publication. Whereas, if only one 'thing' is > made/fabricated/produced, then it is not intended for publication and is > therefore Produced (unless it is digital online and therefore, 'out there' and > therefore published). > > But I agree that a printout of a digital resource does seem to be a special > case, because it is the same 'thing' only being printed by different people, > so > it would be great to know how the PCC task force is coming along with > looking into this entire reproduction issue, because, it is, as you say, > complicated. For example, I think that what Patricia actually has is a > printout > (reproduction?) of a reproduction of the original. > > Can anyone at PCC tell us the status of this task force on reproductions? > > Deborah > > > Deborah Fritz > TMQ, Inc. > (321) 676-1904 > [email protected] > www.marcofquality.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cronquist, Michelle J > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts > > Patricia, > > I think what you're describing looks great. We also catalog a lot of local > printouts and reproductions and are struggling with how to deal with these in > RDA. #858396574 is an example of one I did recently. The one thing that I > would do differently in your record is to use 264 _0 instead of 264 _3; I > don’t > think you can just have printing information without production or > publication information. > > When I wrote to LChelp4rda earlier this year to ask how to deal with > reproductions, I was told that the PCC was going to form a task force to look > into this issue, though I haven't heard anything about this since. The > current > way in RDA is just impractical, since it means that each library has to > create a > new record for their own local reproduction, rather than editing an existing > record. Also, it doesn't make sense for the date field to reflect the > reproduction date rather than the date of the original; this is particularly a > problem for microfilmed newspapers, of which we have many in my > collection. > > Michelle > > --- > Michelle Cronquist > North Caroliniana Cataloger > Special Collections Technical Services > CB#3926, Wilson Library > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > 919-962-6901 > 919-962-3594 (fax) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of FOGLER, PATRICIA A > GS-11 USAF AETC AUL/LTSC > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts > > My question is in regard to local print reproductions (reports run off a > library > printer) of a government document (public domain) PDF received (for > example) in email by a bibliographer. We get a fair number of these and I > need to figure this out. > > In AACR2, we simply cataloged the original, limited the 533 to Printout so > that > if another library had a local reproduction of the same resource, they could > customize that field. > > In RDA, given an 008 Ctry & 264 coded for a specific library, this record > would > not be one I would think another library would feel comfortable editing for > their own use. > > I would especially appreciate critique of the below elements: > 008 Ctry: alu (our library location) > Form: r > Dtst: r Date: 2013,2003 > (printout & original "publication" dates) > > 264_3 [Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama] : ǂb [Fairchild Research Information > Center], ǂc [2013]. > > 77608 |iReproduction of (manifestation) |a Bullis, R. Craig |t Assessing > leaders to establish and maintain positive command climate |d [Carlisle > Barracks, Pennsylvania] : Army War College, 2013 |h PDF document via email > |n Printed locally (public domain) > > Does this look like what is being recommended? I'm still deciding about the > 776 format but I would appreciate input about just about any of the above > elements. > > //SIGNED// > Patricia Fogler > Chief, Cataloging Section (AUL/LTSC) > Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center > DSN 493-2135 Comm (334) 953-2135 > >
