Thomas said:
>If an institution or company issues microform copies of a print
>resource (such as a newspaper), or digitizes them and puts them
>online ("consider all online resources to be published" - RDA
>2.8.1.1), then that institution (or even an individual) becomes the
>publisher, and the original publisher is entered in a Related
>Manifestation element (775 or 776).
Your patrons may accept this, but our clients would bounce that record
back to us. They want the original publisher in brief display. In
AACR2 we used 260$a$b$c for the original publisher, and 260 $e$f$g for
the microfilm or electronic distributor. In RDA, 264 1 plus 264 2
(if distributed, 3 for a one off).
The records we create for Serials Solution have the original
publisher, not Serials Solutions, as imprint. I doubt this will
change with RDA. That would seem to be a parallel situation.
We need to give our patrons the data they need. and I don't mean
buried in a 77X. The provision you quote will be ignored by all our
aggregator clients, ebrary, and OCLC. The original imprint will be in
the records for electronic versions of resources we provide for all of
these.
I agree that 264 2 or 3 is better than 0 for the distributor/printer
of a previously published resource, but so long as the data our
clients want is there, I don't get excited about the coding.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
