>I have never had a good grasp on what constitutes something being published=
> or not published.
As well you might be, considering the ambiguity of language. 264 0
"Producer" does not refer to the producer of a motion picture for
example, but rather to the producer of an unpublished resource. The
confusion is increased by the fact that we pretend that a print thesis
is unpublished, a fiction since photocopiers replaced carbon paper,
particularly since most theses these days are printed out from the
published electronic form.
Where SLC differs from some is that from our clients' point of view,
once content is published, it can not revert to being unpublished.
For one off reproductions of published material (printouts or
photocopies) what is relevant to patrons is the publisher of the
material in 264 1. The printer or photocopier can be recorded in 264
3. Similarly for aggregators of e-books; the aggregator can be
recorded in 264 2 as distributor. They did not publish the e-books.
The PN (Provider Neutral) standard fortunately recognized this,
although the standard omits useful fields (010$z, 506, 530, 538), and
uses a too general unit name (online resource as opposed to PDF,
website, streaming video, etc.).
So basically, I would advise recording producer of originally
unpublished material (such as a manuscript letter) in 264 0; actual
publisher in 264 1; after the fact printer or distributor in 264 3 or
264 2. (It's odd that 2 and 3 indicators were assigned in that
order, since manufacture must precede distribution.)
As a bow to the fiction concerning print theses, the degree granting
institution can be recorded in 260 0.
>I'm especially confused about the differences between "=
>production," "distribution," and "manufacture."
"Production" would be the creation of a unique resource, such as a
manuscript. "Distribution" would be providing the resource, such as
an e-resource agregator (Serials Solutions, Canadian Electronic
Library, ebrary). Some publishers distribute other publisher's
material, e.g., Business Expert Press distributes Marketing Classics
Press publications.
>I'm attempting to catalog a resource which is basically a photocopied
>booklet of a collection of student writings.
Happy to look at your record if you send it to me; we don't catalogue
on OCLC. If the photocopies were distributed, I would record the
compiler/photocopier in 264 1 (a school?). If no imprint
information, I would give the school in brackets. If it is a one off
copy of a previously published item, then 264 1 for the original
publisher, and 264 3 for the photocopier.
>On another item I'm working on, which is also a photocopied book of
>several pages ...
If a one off copy of a published item, original publisher in 264 1
(that's what the patron needs to know for authority and currency); the
photocopier in 264 3 (in addition to, not instead of, 264 1).
When following AACR2 or RDA on reproductions (as opposed to the ill
advised LCRI), we make a distinction between a publisher (such as
ProQuest, UMI), vs. a one off copier (e.g. an ILL department).
>I again can't tell if this item would be considered published, or
>merely "produced" or "manufactured" or whatever. It has what looks
>like a publisher's statement presented, along with the title
>information, on the cardstock cover, which says: Mormon History
>Association / Killington, Vermont / May 28, 2005. According to the
>acknowledgments page in the book, this refers to a meeting of the
association.
We would consider the Association to be a creator (110. 111, 710, 711)
but not producer (264 0) since it is not a manuscript. We would
record the Association both as a main or added entry creator, and 264
1 publisher.
>I'm not sure = how or if to record an access point and associated
>relator term to the meeting.
If a named meeting, it would be 111 (if these are the proceedings) or
711; with either $ecreator or $eissuing body.
>Also, I'm not sure what to do with the very specific date
Record the year in 264 1 $c, and the full date in 518.
>Does the record need a statement of responsibil= ity in 245 $c?
Without seeing the record, I would say yes. The Lubetski practice of
not repeating the name is long past. Those records have given us
problems, particularly when the 100 or 110 became a 700 or 710, and
the name was not given in 245$c or 260$b,
>Since the book mainly consists of Snow's poetry with short,
>introductory material before each one, should she be in 245 $c, and
>used as a main/alternate access point (if so, what relator term do I
use?
We would have her as 245 /$c and 100, with relator term $eauthor;
"poet" is not in the list. (Some RDA relator terms are more exact
than other, e.g., we have "sculptor" as well as "artist", but not
"poet" as well as "author".) If one person wrote the introductory
material that person would be 700 $ewriter of added text.
)The use of the subject subdivision -Poetry has me confused as well.
You would use $vPoety after a personal (600). topical (650) or place
(651) subject, for poetry about that person, topic, or place. You
would not use it after the name of the poet unless there is material
about the poetry. If you think those short introductory statements
need a subject tracing, $vPoetry would follow the poet's name in 600,
not 100 or 700. You would not use that subject heading for a book
consisting only of her poetry. "Poetry" could be a 655 and or coded
in 008/33. It is poetry, not about poetry.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
