Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

[J. McRee Elrod]

Michael Bernhard said:

>Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in
>addition to the new 33x fields)?
  
This would be counter to RDA's effort to have only transcribed
information in transcribed fields.  The same reasoning was behind the
abandonment of "[sic]" or supplying missing letters in brackets.  I
think the reasoning behind no additions was to make it easier to use
captured data without change.  Use without even standardizing
punctuation is allowed.

We fail to see what captured data they have in mind.  We find ONIX
information often not accurate, and more difficult to adapt than to
just start from scratch, or cut and paste from PDFs.
  
It was very difficult to get the option of adding missing
jurisdictions in 260$a as opposed to a note, but I think that was
accepted.

Abandoning the GMD is counter to the findings of a survey done by Jean
Riddle Weihs, as well contrary to common sense.  Granted GMDs could
have been improved by making the content/carrier distinction, perhaps
even compound GMDs, but with shorter and more patron friendly terms
than RDA's 33X.   The GMD in conjunction with a more exact SMD worked
quite well in our experience.  Only systems able to provide
understandable icons will escape the inconvenience of the missing GMD.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

This map of the GMD to content-media-carrier values, as well as extent values 
might be useful:

http://rdaincanada.wikispaces.com/file/view/gmd_to_cmc_and_extent_20120905.docx

The new 336-337-338 fields align closely to existing MARC categorizations. The 
mapping to the legacy GMD values shows how fluid and unwieldy the GMD was-- 
sometimes it referred to the content type ("text" is not a "material"), 
sometimes to a category that matched a generic intermediary device 
("videorecording" mapped to 337 "video"), and sometimes the GMD got so specific 
that the label "general material type" was inappropriate.

In the ILS I use the GMD display is suppressed and replaced by terms and icons 
that are generated by fixed field values. There is more control and flexibility 
in this approach, and the mess of punctuation getting stuck along with the $h 
value is something that will be great to get rid of. The system even generates 
the term for display after each applicable title in the Title Browse index, 
which mimics the GMD very closely.

The underlying compelling logic (as found in RDA and elsewhere) is that we 
should talk about data elements separate from each other and not get bogged 
down by display decisions in the same breath. We should also talk about data 
elements in light of the entity that is being referred to in each case. One of 
the problems with the GMD was that it shifted its focus to different aspects of 
a resource making its utility unpredictable given new situations (such as all 
the different content types that could be an "electronic resource").

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


> -Original Message-
> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Bernhard, Michael
> Sent: October 22, 2012 6:39 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> 
> Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in addition
> to the new 33x fields)?  Or are the new rules already so set in stone that
> such a change could not be considered?  It seems that many of you in these
> conversations (and many others whose views you report) see a definite need
> for the continued application of the GMD.  (I apologize for not being aware
> of the thinking that led to the abandonment of the
> GMD.)
> 
> Michael Bernhard
> 
> Cataloger, Library Materials Support Services Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
> Library System
> 501 Copper Avenue NW
> Albuquerque, NM  87102
> Tel:  (505) 768-5119
> Email: mbernh...@cabq.gov
> http://www.cabq.gov/library
> 
> -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: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:35 PM
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA
> 
> Buzz Haughton said:
> 
>  * * *
> 
> >I also must re-add $h to all of my 245s when cataloging under RDA,
> >because the collection development librarians want the format included
> >in the title.
> 
> So far all of our clients but one want GMDs.  I agree with your collection
> development librarians.  Even if [338 : 336] terms are mapped to display at
> head of other data, or at end of 245$a, the terms are too long and
> confusing for patrons.  If displayed in tag order (as some systems must), I
> agree they are useless as early warning.
> 
> 
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Deborah Fritz]

In a 260, you would not repeat the date (1999, c1999) because you would be 
following AACR which does not repeat the date:

 

Field 260 is useful for cases where the content standard or institutional 
policies used do not make a distinction between functions-- 
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd260.html

 

Field 264 is useful for cases where the content standard or institutional 
policies make a distinction between functions-- 
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html

 

If you are following RDA, then you will be using the 264, and in that case you 
will need to have your system display the two fields separately, with 
appropriate labels:

264 _1 …, $c 1999

264 _4 $c©1999

 

Could display as:

Publication: …, 1999

Copyright: ©1999

Or 

Publication: …, 1999

Copyright: ℗2009

If the date is a phonogram copyright date.

 

Deborah

-  - -

Deborah Fritz

TMQ, Inc.

  debo...@marcofquality.com

  www.marcofquality.com

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:22 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

 

Hmm.  Could be right.  However, if III, our system here, could read a MARC 
record directly, we might not have this problem.

Our 260 displays just as we record it.  So, what will a patron think, when 
he/she sees 1999, c1999. 

Why include both dates when one will do.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Young,Naomi Kietzke  
wrote:

Gene, 

 

This proves what, exactly? If we are to align our cataloging rules to the 
display capability of online systems, we will have an even more dizzying area 
of localized standards. I, for one, do not want to see the ExLibris Aleph v20 
Policy Decisions published, followed by the III Milennium Rule Interpretations, 
et al. 

 

In a Monday grump,

 

Naomi Young 

University of Florida 

na...@uflib.ufl.edu

Who has been trying to standardize consortial policies and knows at least one 
path to madness.   

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:24 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA 


Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

 

I have also seen both dates entered in the description.  Patrons will think we 
are nuts when they see the display.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joan Wang  wrote:

AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are 
different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see 
different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing. But 
in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field. 

Joan Wang 

 

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse  wrote:

I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.

Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date and 
copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.  Whether there is 
a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137



 




-- 

Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

 

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.

 

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Kevin M Randall]

Gene Fieg wrote:

> Why include both dates when one will do.

"When one will do" for what?  Date of publication and date of copyright are 
*not* the same thing.  They may often (one might argue most of the time) appear 
identical.  But they are two entirely different things.  Just like the series 
statement, and the series access point, are two entirely different things.  
Recently we were *finally* able to do away with the all-purpose 440 field in 
MARC.  And now we're starting to move away from the all-purpose 260 $c.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

[Bernhard, Michael]

Has anyone suggested that RDA be revised to provide for a GMD (in
addition to the new 33x fields)?  Or are the new rules already so set in
stone that such a change could not be considered?  It seems that many of
you in these conversations (and many others whose views you report) see
a definite need for the continued application of the GMD.  (I apologize
for not being aware of the thinking that led to the abandonment of the
GMD.)

Michael Bernhard

Cataloger, Library Materials Support Services 
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library System
501 Copper Avenue NW
Albuquerque, NM  87102
Tel:  (505) 768-5119
Email: mbernh...@cabq.gov
http://www.cabq.gov/library

-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: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

Buzz Haughton said:

 * * *

>I also must re-add $h to all of my 245s when cataloging under RDA, 
>because the collection development librarians want the format included 
>in the title.

So far all of our clients but one want GMDs.  I agree with your
collection development librarians.  Even if [338 : 336] terms are mapped
to display at head of other data, or at end of 245$a, the terms are too
long and confusing for patrons.  If displayed in tag order (as some
systems must), I agree they are useless as early warning.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Gene Fieg]

Hmm.  Could be right.  However, if III, our system here, could read a MARC
record directly, we might not have this problem.
Our 260 displays just as we record it.  So, what will a patron think, when
he/she sees 1999, c1999.
Why include both dates when one will do.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Young,Naomi Kietzke wrote:

>  Gene, 
>
> ** **
>
> This proves what, exactly? If we are to align our cataloging rules to the
> display capability of online systems, we will have an even more dizzying
> area of localized standards. I, for one, do not want to see the ExLibris
> Aleph v20 Policy Decisions published, followed by the III Milennium Rule
> Interpretations, et al. 
>
> ** **
>
> In a Monday grump,
>
> ** **
>
> Naomi Young 
>
> University of Florida 
>
> na...@uflib.ufl.edu
>
> Who has been trying to standardize consortial policies and knows at least
> one path to madness.   
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
> [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Gene Fieg
> *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2012 4:24 PM
> *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>
> *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> I have also seen both dates entered in the description.  Patrons will
> think we are nuts when they see the display.
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joan Wang 
> wrote:
>
> AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are
> different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see
> different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing.
> But in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field.
>
> Joan Wang 
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse 
> wrote:
>
> I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.
>
> Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date
> and copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.  Whether
> there is a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.
>
> --Ben
>
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Cataloging Coordinator
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
> MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
>
> 
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.

Re: [RDA-L] [ACAT] "Main entry" in RDA

[J. McRee Elrod]

Thomas Brenndorfer said:

>In RDA, if there are four creators listed in the statement of
>responsibility, the first would go in a 100 and the rest in 700
>fields. In AACR2, because of the rule of three, the first listed
>would go in a 700 field and the rest would be dropped. That's one
>significant change in RDA from AACR2.

In RDA it is required to transcribe and trace only one.  Some RDA
records for manifestations with two or three authors may have fewer
creator entries than an AACR2 record would have had.

It is true that more RDA records will have 100 and 110 (e.g.,
treaties) than AACR2, due to the end of the rule of three.

I see no advantage in combining 100/240 or 100/245 in nuMARC.  They
only need to be combined in 600 and 700.

In new title lists we print, we give the 100 once, with 245s after in
alphabetic order.  I see no need to repeat the 100 in print or OPAC
display before each title.

I suspect we will abandon all print poducts with nuMARC, and leave our
clients to cope in terms of OPAC display.  We've never seen an OPAC
display we like better than unlabeled ISBD.  We agree with Martha Yee:

http://slc.bc.ca/yee.pdf




   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[J. McRee Elrod]

Ben said:

>Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication
>date and copyright date) and both date fields filled out,
>accordingly.  Whether there is a difference between pub. date and
>copyright date, or not.

How redundant.  Lubetsky must be spinning in his grave.

A little common sense is in order!


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

Honestly, I doubt patrons will, or ever do, think about who puts the data in 
the catalog, at all.

That said, when the new 264 fields were implemented we changed our display 
(running Aleph v.20) so that is reads "Publication:" for 264:x1: and 
"Copyright:" for 264:x4:.  (Which by the way we were able to do because 264 is 
differently defined than 260.)

I think it looks just fine, and not even slightly crazy--even if they are the 
same date.

Under AACR2 we used copyright date as a surrogate for publication date, when it 
was nowhere to be found; but under RDA it is (appropriately, I think) a 
separate data element.  I think this makes sense, for two reasons: first, 
because that is typically how it appears on books (with copyright and 
publication often appearing in different places on the piece); and second, 
because people are sometimes interested in copyrights in and of themselves, not 
just in using them to identify books.

I've certainly had my share of questions about the utility of some decisions 
that went into RDA, and its implementation; but for me at least this isn't one 
of them.


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:24 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

I have also seen both dates entered in the description.  Patrons will think we 
are nuts when they see the display.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are 
different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see 
different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing. But 
in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field.

Joan Wang

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse 
mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote:
I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.

Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date and 
copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.  Whether there is 
a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

robert Maxwell said:

>,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to
>record the element that way while recording a copyright date

One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons.

If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c are the same:

008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005

If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c differ:

008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   
HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__


--
Joan Wang
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax




--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent 
or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content 
contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that of the original 
sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or 
Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a courtesy for 
information only.

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Kevin M Randall]

The Monday grump wrote:

> If we are to align our cataloging rules to the
> display capability of online systems, we will have an even more dizzying
> area of localized standards. I, for one, do not want to see the ExLibris
> Aleph v20 Policy Decisions published, followed by the III Milennium Rule
> Interpretations, et al.
> 
> In a Monday grump,
> 
> Naomi Young

Oh so true!

It's precisely because of the lack of display standards that RDA is really 
important.  If we can't get the displays standardized, maybe it's because the 
DATA aren't standardized.  If we don't have standard data, there's no way we'll 
be able to get standard displays.  (Yes, ISBD does attempt to standardize both; 
but it's woefully short on standardizing the data, and the battle for using it 
to standardize displays was lost a long time ago.)  AACR2 is nowhere near being 
a standard for data.  And MARC in its current form has way too many ambiguous 
elements. 

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Young,Naomi Kietzke]

Gene,

This proves what, exactly? If we are to align our cataloging rules to the 
display capability of online systems, we will have an even more dizzying area 
of localized standards. I, for one, do not want to see the ExLibris Aleph v20 
Policy Decisions published, followed by the III Milennium Rule Interpretations, 
et al.

In a Monday grump,

Naomi Young
University of Florida
na...@uflib.ufl.edu
Who has been trying to standardize consortial policies and knows at least one 
path to madness.

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:24 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

I have also seen both dates entered in the description.  Patrons will think we 
are nuts when they see the display.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joan Wang 
mailto:jw...@illinoisheartland.org>> wrote:
AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are 
different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see 
different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing. But 
in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field.

Joan Wang

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse 
mailto:babra...@mit.edu>> wrote:
I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.

Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date and 
copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.  Whether there is 
a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Gene Fieg]

I have also seen both dates entered in the description.  Patrons will think
we are nuts when they see the display.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Joan Wang wrote:

> AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are
> different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see
> different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing.
> But in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field.
>
> Joan Wang
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:
>
>> I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.
>>
>> Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication
>> date and copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.
>>  Whether there is a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.
>>
>> --Ben
>>
>>
>> Benjamin Abrahamse
>> Cataloging Coordinator
>> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
>> MIT Libraries
>> 617-253-7137
>>
>>
>> -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: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM
>> To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates
>>
>> robert Maxwell said:
>>
>> >,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to
>> >record the element that way while recording a copyright date
>>
>> One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons.
>>
>> If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c are the same:
>>
>> 008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005
>>
>> If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c differ:
>>
>> 008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005
>>
>>
>>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   
>> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>>   ___} |__ \__
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Joan Wang
> Cataloger -- CMC
> Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
> 6725 Goshen Road
> Edwardsville, IL 62025
> 618.656.3216x409
> 618.656.9401Fax
>
>


-- 
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Joan Wang]

AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are
different. But RDA does not have the same rule. So in AACR2 records, we see
different dates in 008 field, and would not see the same dates appearing.
But in RDA records we can see the same dates in 008 field.

Joan Wang

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

> I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.
>
> Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date
> and copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.  Whether
> there is a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.
>
> --Ben
>
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Cataloging Coordinator
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
> MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
>
> -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: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM
> To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates
>
> robert Maxwell said:
>
> >,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to
> >record the element that way while recording a copyright date
>
> One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons.
>
> If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c are the same:
>
> 008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005
>
> If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c differ:
>
> 008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005
>
>
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__
>



-- 
Joan Wang
Cataloger -- CMC
Illinois Heartland Library System (Edwardsville Office)
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL 62025
618.656.3216x409
618.656.9401Fax

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Adam L. Schiff]

If the date of publication and copyright date are the same and both are 
recorded, then it is correct to code the Date type as "t" and give both 
dates in the Dates fixed field.  The LC-PCC Policy Statement for 2.8.6.6 
shows just such an example:



Title page verso
2009
Item received in
2008
Date of publication
not given

Transcription
264 #1  $a  $b ... $c [2009]
264 #4  $c 2009

008/06 Type of date
t

008/07-10
2009
008/11-14
2009

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:


I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.

Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date and 
copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.  Whether there is a 
difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

robert Maxwell said:


,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to
record the element that way while recording a copyright date


One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons.

If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c are the same:

008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005

If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c differ:

008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005


  __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
 {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
 ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Gene Fieg]

That is what I see too.  I don't change the master record, but I do change
the record that is exported to our system to single date in the fixed fields

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Benjamin A Abrahamse wrote:

> I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.
>
> Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date
> and copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.  Whether
> there is a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.
>
> --Ben
>
>
> Benjamin Abrahamse
> Cataloging Coordinator
> Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
> MIT Libraries
> 617-253-7137
>
>
> -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: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM
> To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates
>
> robert Maxwell said:
>
> >,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to
> >record the element that way while recording a copyright date
>
> One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons.
>
> If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c are the same:
>
> 008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005
>
> If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c differ:
>
> 008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005
>
>
>__   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
>   {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__
>



-- 
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Benjamin A Abrahamse]

I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.

Most RDA records now seem to have Date status set to "t" (Publication date and 
copyright date) and both date fields filled out, accordingly.  Whether there is 
a difference between pub. date and copyright date, or not.

--Ben


Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-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: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:56 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

robert Maxwell said:

>,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to 
>record the element that way while recording a copyright date

One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for patrons.

If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c are the same:

008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005

If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c differ:

008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[J. McRee Elrod]

robert Maxwell said:

>,,, how to code the fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to
>record the element that way while recording a copyright date

One should NEVER do that. It is cruel and unusual publishment for
patrons.

If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c are the same:

008/06 = s, 008/07-10 = 2005

If 264  1 $c and 264  4 $c differ:

008/06 = t, 008/07-10 = 2006, 008/11-14 = 2005


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] Additional work required by RDA

[J. McRee Elrod]

Buzz Haughton said:

>abandonment of 260 and going to this more complicated way to expressing
>publication/copyright year as adding anything in information to the user.

Agreed that it would have been better in terms of consistency with
legagy records to have added 2nd indicators to 260, rather than to
create 264.

The one good change is production information for unpublished
resources, but SLC has been doing that (contra AACR2) for years.  
Since photocopies appeared, and now that theses are printed from
computers, it is silly to pretend a thesis is a manuscript.

>In the public library where I now volunteer as a retired cataloger, I
>must retrofit each and every RDA record I create to eliminate the $c
>in the second 264 and put it into the first; lots of extra manual
>work ...

Why was $c omitted from 264  1?  Publication year should be guessed if
not on the item.  By "second" 264 I assume you mean 264  4 (not 264  2
distributor).  While we do not plan to enter 264  4 $c if the same as
264  1 $c, why must it be removed?

>I also must re-add $h to all of my 245s when cataloging under RDA,
>because the collection development librarians want the format
>included in the title.

So far all of our clients but one want GMDs.  I agree with your
collection development librarians.  Even if [338 : 336] terms are
mapped to display at head of other data, or at end of 245$a, the terms
are too long and confusing for patrons.  If displayed in tag order (as
some systems must), I agree they are useless as early warning.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

[Robert Maxwell]

Several people have written in quoting LC practice (supply a date), or giving 
other reasons why not to use "date of publication not identified", but I don't 
think anybody's actually answered Karen's question, which is how to code the 
fixed fields in a MARC record if you do choose to record the element that way 
while recording a copyright date, a practice allowed in RDA. I'd be interested 
in the answer as well.

Bob


Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to 
the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Adam L. Schiff 
[asch...@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 11:10 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Date of publication not identified" & DtSt, Dates

The LC-PCC Policy Statement 2.8.6.6 says:

1. Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date, in
square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely
publication date.

If you supply a probable date, then you don't need to record the copyright
date, although you certainly can.  So with a c2005 date on your piece, you
would do either:

264 _1 $c [2005]

Type of date: s

Dates: 2005,

or you could do:

264 _1 $c [2005]
264 _4 $c (c)2005

Type of date: t

Dates: 2005, 2005

The LC-PCC PS also says:

2. If the copyright date is for the year following the year in which the
publication is received, supply a date of publication that corresponds to
the copyright date.

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012, Snow, Karen wrote:

> I've done a little searching and can't find the answer, so I am hoping the 
> collective wisdom can help me out...
>
> If you use [date of publication not identified] in 264_1 $c and you have a 
> copyright date in 264_4 (let's say 2005), how would this look in DtSt and 
> Dates fixed fields?
>
> DtSt = t
> Dates = , 2005
> ?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help,
>
> Karen
>
>
> Karen Snow, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Graduate School of Library & Information Science
> Dominican University
> 7900 West Division Street
> River Forest, IL  60305
> ks...@dom.edu
> 708-524-6077 (office)
> 708-524-6657 (fax)