Adam said:
>I think technically it is NOT possible to use 264 _2 and 264 _3 with 264 _0
>in an RDA-coded record
Why would one wish to do that? Nobody has suggested 264 1 $bGod for a
rock. All we need is 264 2 for the seller of the rock. Like
manuscripts, equipment and naturally occurring objects are not
published, and should have the appropriate 264 indicator for
manufacturer and distributor.
>distribution and manufacture elements in RDA are defined as
>pertaining only to published resources.
That is simply wrong and should be ignored until changed. iPads are
manufactured and rocks distributed, even though not published. One of
the first items I ever catalogued was a set of sample minerals. The
were collected and distributed, not published.
>This may be an area >in RDA that needs revision
That is an understatement. Until revised, we should be truthful in
our descriptions, and not pretend that equipment manufacturers and
naturally occurring object distributors are publishers.
> but the definitions given in RDA are quite >clear.
No they are not. Much of RDA is very unclear, and not in accord with
reality. How many JSC members are actual cataloguers of nonbook
materials? They should add Julie Moore to their number!
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
