Adam, that has always been my understanding. If I recall correctly, in the very early introductions to RDA done by Judy Kuhagen, the double punctuation was pointed out; I believe the PS was updated later to avoid the absurdity.
Steven Arakawa Catalog Librarian for Training & Documentation Catalog & Metadata Services, SML, Yale University P.O. Box 208240 New Haven, CT 06520-8240 (203)432-8286 steven.arak...@yale.edu ________________________________________ 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: Saturday, September 28, 2013 7:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Punctuation at end of 250 field Hi all, I've got a question regarding ending punctuation in the 250 field. RDA D.1.2.1 indicates that in ISBD display, an full stop would be added after an edition statement, even if the statement ends in an abbreviation: 3rd ed.. -- not 3rd ed. -- LC-PCC Policy Statement for 1.7.1 says: "If either field 245 or 250 does not end in a period, add one." Am I correct in my thinking that the implication of this policy statement is that if an edition statement ends in an abbreviation, a second period would NOT be added? In other words, which of the following is expected in a PCC record?: 250 ## $a 3rd ed.. or 250 ## $a 3rd ed. [Note: the examples are predicated on the abbreviation being found and transcribed as is from the resource]. Thanks, Adam ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
