Thanks Mac. Do we really need a 501 note and 700$a$t for the Introduzione, and the bibliography? The $ts would be a bit generic wouldn't they? I'm not sure how useful they'd be.
I kind of found the answer to my question of whether I need a 500 note if I use the 775 |i in LC's "Reconsidering the Cataloging Treatment of Reproductions"(April 29, 2010)--which I interpret to say that I don't need a 500 if I'm using a 775 (i.e., if I'm doing a structured description rather than an unstructured description of the related manifestation). In this document LC states that it will "generally use the relationship designators 'reproduction of (manifestation)' and 'reproduced as', rather than one of the more specific terms (e.g., facsimile, reprinted as) to simplify the process of choosing a relationship in an area where the meaning of terms is open to interpretation." Are others following that, or are you using the more specific designators from Appendix J.4? There was an earlier discussion on RDA-L pertaining to whether the |w is mandatory in the 775, and if there is no OCLC record for the original work and therefore nothing to put in the |w, if one must then use a 500 note (http://www.mail-archive.com/rda-l@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca/msg07929.html). I think Steven is saying that it's not mandatory, and given what's stated in this LC training module (RDA: Module 4--Relationships in RDA (Hawkins & Nguyen, Sept. 2012 (Revised Dec. 4, 2012)), I would say that the |w isn't mandatory as long as one has "other detailed information" about the original. The training module states: "If a bibliographic record OR other detailed information about the original is not available, give instead a bibliographic history note with as much information as you have in a MARC 500 field." Likewise "Reconsidering the Cataloging Treatment of Reproductions" mentioned above, also states: "The 775/776 field could be used reciprocally on both records, if desired, BUT PRESENCE OF SEPARATE RECORDS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE USE OF LINKING ENTRY FIELDS IN MARC." Are others also interpreting these 2 statement to mean that the |w isn't mandatory in the 775 as long as you have other detailed information about the original? Forgive me if this was already settled on this list, I couldn't find that it was when querying the Archives. Thanks very much for your help, Dana -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:07 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Facsimile reprint Dana Van Meter posted: >I have a facsimile reprint, which is not at first glance a facsimile >reprint, but it is. My book has a new title page, followed by >28 unnumbered pages which contain an added Introduction ... I would certainly adjust the collation to include the added pages, record the introduction (title and author) in 501, and trace in 700$a$t. Our IT person would insert the 775, in addition to the cataloguer's note identifying this as a reproduction. __________________________________________________________________________ ______________ I sent on 11/21/13 I'm cataloging my first reproduction in RDA, so of course I have a question! I have a facsimile reprint, which is not at first glance a facsimile reprint, but it is. My book has a new title page, followed by 28 unnumbered pages which contain an added Introduction (Introduzione, as it's in Italian); and an "aggiornamento bibliografico" with the title: L'epistolario di Plinio il Giovane tra letteratura e archeologia: aggiornamento bibliografico (1936-2006). After the 28 unnumbered pages of the additional introd. & bibliographical references, is the facsimile reprint, which includes the original title page, and retains the page numbering of the original. The only record I can find in OCLC for my book is ocn124073548, which is in RDA, but totally ignores the unnumbered pages, so I hesitate to accept this copy without editing. My question is, do I need a 775 in this record? I can find one example (although there are probably more) in LC, of an RDA record for a facsimile reprint which includes a new introduction and the 775 note is not used (LCCN 2013361265), and one for a facsimile reprint without any new, additional material added, which does include a 775 (LCCN 2013361265). I'm having trouble grasping when a 775 is needed, and would like some guidance. Also, if we have a 775 with a |i, do we not have a need then, for a 500 note stating that the resource is a facsimile reprint? If I do need a 500 note, I see "Facsimile of:" in the examples at 27.1.1.3, do we now say "Facsimile of" rather than "Facsimile reprint of"? The examples at LC-PCC PS 27.1.1.3 show |i Reproduction of (manifestation), do I use that in this case, or can I use |i Facsimile of (manifestation) from Appendix J.4.2? Thanks very much for your help. Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
