Adam responded to my statement:

>> RDA as now written does not require a "not identified" publisher
>> statement (264  1) when recording producer (264  0)
>That is because it would be contrary to the definitions, Mac. 
>"Production" in RDA is limited only to unpublished resources.  It can't 
>simultaneously be published (264 _1) and unpublished (264 _0).

Exactly!!  That's my point!!!

iPads and rocks are not published either.  It should also be possible
to use 264  3 and 264  2 without a 264  1, just as it is for 264  0.

Resources may be manufactured or distributed without being published,
just as they may be produced without being published.   We should not
stretch the meaning of "publish" beyond all reason.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

Reply via email to