NO, NO, NO!!!
(Yes, the vehemence is intentional and warranted at the gross contravention
of RDA's stipulations in this matter.)

RDA explicitly eliminates the use of AACR2's Latin abbreviations of [S.l. :
s.n.].  The use of [n.d.] from AACR1 was eliminated in AACR2.

There is provision in RDA to address the question at hand raised by Seth
Huber.  Per RDA,, and, these are replaced with
[Place of publication not identified], [publisher not identified], and
[date of publication not identified].  These are the "... not identified"
placeholders referenced by Thomas Brenndorfer in his earlier reply.

John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Jack Wu <> wrote:

>  When all elements are lacking, and there's no RDA provision, I suppose
> you can for the time being at least, go back to AACR:
> Just use: S.L. : s.n., n.d.
> Until no mixed record or coding is allowed, or a 264 5 should come along.
> >>> "Brenndorfer, Thomas" <> 12/6/2013
> 10:46 AM >>>
> RDA 1.3 (for the core elements) – include the elements only if they “are
> applicable and readily ascertainable.”
> For these publisher-related elements though RDA does indicate the use of
> the “… not identified” placeholders. These signal at a minimum that the
> resource can be determined as being published but the place and name of
> publisher cannot be determined. [snip]
  *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Seth Huber
> Given that RDA seems to have a hierarchy for publication, etc.,
> information--take publication first, distribution if that is absent, and
> manufacture if distribution is also not present--what do we do if none of
> these are present and nothing can be supplied from outside the resource? It
> seems that the rules and the PCC policy statements are quiet on this
> possibility.

Reply via email to