I would tie two RDA instructions together:
RDA 1.1.2 "The term 'resource' is used in chapters 2-4 to refer to a
manifestation or item."
RDA 2.8.1.1 "A publication statement is a statement identifying the place or
places of publication, publisher or publishers, and date or dates of
publication of a resource."
The manifestation in Chapter 2 is the actual physical object in hand, not the
original, and so the publication statement, in refering to the manifestation,
refers to that physical object. Elsewhere in RDA, 'resource' can refer to work,
expression, manifestation, or item, but not in Chapter 2 where it is only
applied to manifestations or items.
In addition, there is 2.8.1.3 Facsimiles and Reproductions, which directs the
use of a Related Manifestation element for the original publication statement:
"When a facsimile or reproduction has a publication statement or statements
relating to the original manifestation as well as to the facsimile or
reproduction, record the publication statement or statements relating to the
facsimile or reproduction. Record any publication statement relating to the
original as a publication statement of a related manifestation."
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
________________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
[asch...@u.washington.edu]
Sent: September-26-13 3:21 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
Mac,
I was speculating about what one would do if adhering strictly to RDA.
But I could be persuaded by Thomas Brenndorfer's argument that the
publisher of the printout is the agency that printed it out. I would also
be content with a decision to apply the provider-neutral guidelines in
reverse and give the publisher of the online in the publication elements.
But that would not be what RDA itself says to do.
Adam
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:38:59 -0700
> From: J. McRee Elrod <m...@slc.bc.ca>
> To: asch...@u.washington.edu
> Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA local printouts
>
> 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/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
