Adam said:
>I think in RDA you would supply:
>
>264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not
identified], $c [date of publication not identified]
>264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of
printing]
But you DO know the place, publisher and date for the electronic
content. which remains the same in the printout. Who would benefit
from that erroneous space consuming 264 1?
When changing print to electronic, the Provider Neutral Standard calls
for the original print publisher in 264 1. When changing electronic
to print, the same principle should apply; the electronic imprint
should carry over. They published it. The library is just printing
it.
We very much approve of the PN standard abandoning the LCRI, and
describing what one has. The PN standard gets it right that the
publisher of the content belongs in imprint. (We add 264 2 for the
aggregator, but we seem to be alone in that. We would never
substitute the aggregator for the publisher, anymore than we would
substitute a printer for a publisher.)
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
