[RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
I've noticed that records with 264 fields and no 260 fields are starting to be imported to our catalog from OCLC. Can anyone explain why the information presented in the 264 field is considered preferable or more informative than the information that has long been contained in the 260 fields? Thank you for your thoughts on this. Mike McReynolds Cataloging / ILL Librarian Shook, Hardy Bacon Kansas City
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
Because the 264 allows you to have separate fields for production, publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright, in accordance with RDA, coded so that machine processing can distinguish them. The initial testing of RDA used the 260, and based on the results it was felt that a new repeatable field with indicators was a better solution. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike McReynolds Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields I've noticed that records with 264 fields and no 260 fields are starting to be imported to our catalog from OCLC. Can anyone explain why the information presented in the 264 field is considered preferable or more informative than the information that has long been contained in the 260 fields? Thank you for your thoughts on this. Mike McReynolds Cataloging / ILL Librarian Shook, Hardy Bacon Kansas City
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
...doesn’t 264 1 pretty much replicate 260, however? Personally I would have preferred it if 264 1 could have remained 260, and 264 being for all the other, more ephemeral contributers. Any idea why they didn’t do something like that? My money’s on the fundamentalist lobby working on the same kind of level that requires all records with series entry to have both 490/830, whether they’re the same heading or not ;-) Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: 21 June 2013 16:14 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields Because the 264 allows you to have separate fields for production, publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright, in accordance with RDA, coded so that machine processing can distinguish them. The initial testing of RDA used the 260, and based on the results it was felt that a new repeatable field with indicators was a better solution. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edumailto:steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike McReynolds Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields I've noticed that records with 264 fields and no 260 fields are starting to be imported to our catalog from OCLC. Can anyone explain why the information presented in the 264 field is considered preferable or more informative than the information that has long been contained in the 260 fields? Thank you for your thoughts on this. Mike McReynolds Cataloging / ILL Librarian Shook, Hardy Bacon Kansas City
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
Thank you. I will review the indicators in our records to make certain they are displaying the distinctions you point out. On 6/21/2013 10:14 AM, McDonald, Stephen wrote: Because the 264 allows you to have separate fields for production, publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright, in accordance with RDA, coded so that machine processing can distinguish them.The initial testing of RDA used the 260, and based on the results it was felt that a new repeatable field with indicators was a better solution. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu *From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Mike McReynolds *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 9:44 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields I've noticed that records with 264 fields and no 260 fields are starting to be imported to our catalog from OCLC. Can anyone explain why the information presented in the 264 field is considered preferable or more informative than the information that has long been contained in the 260 fields? Thank you for your thoughts on this. Mike McReynolds Cataloging / ILL Librarian Shook, Hardy Bacon Kansas City
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
This is a catch-up email. I try to understand Deborah's summary. I read both LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcps2-1702 and 2.8.6.6. They actually have the same information for a item lacking a publication date contains a copyright and a date of manufacture and the years differ. The policy does say supply a date of publication that corresponds to the copyright date in square brackets. A manufacture date may also be recorded as part of a manufacture statement, or recorded as part of a note on issue, part, or iteration used as the basis for identification of a resource. So for the Example 1, the inferred publication date should be [2013]. The printing date 2012 may be recorded in a manufacture statement, or a 588 description based note. Example 1 Verso of book reads: Copyright © 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 Deborah mentioned *C.1*. But the upper category *C.* does say that If an item lacking a publication date contains *only a date of manufacture*. The Example 1 is not an applicable case, since it contains both copyright and manufacture date. I hope that my understanding is correct. Any correction would be appreciated. Thanks to everyone. Joan Wang Illinois Heartland Library System On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Deborah Fritz debo...@marcofquality.comwrote: My thanks to the folks who sent in feedback on how they would handle my two date examples. As I suspected, there was considerable variation on how the dates would be entered for these resources—here is a summary, with some paraphrasing, and extrapolating, so hopefully I have interpreted all the replies correctly: ** ** Example 1 Verso of book reads: ** ** Copyright © 2013 First printing, August 2012 ISBN 9780321832740 ** ** Use © to supply PubD = 2 264_1 … $c[2013] ** ** Use © to supply PubD, add © = 1 264_1 … $c[2013] 264_4 $c©2013 Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add © = 4 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_4 $c©2013 ** ** Use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add © = 1 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_3 … $c2012. 264_4 $c©2013 ** ** Enter 1st Prt as PubD = 2 264_1 … $c2012. -- Here is my take on the 1st example: LC-PCC PS for 2.10.6http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2target=lcps2-1702#lcps2-1702 B) says: “If an item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, 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” ** ** C.1) says: “Supply a date of publication that corresponds to the manufacture date, in square brackets, if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date. For books, this means that the item is assumed to be the first printing of the edition. Also record the manufacture date as part of a manufacture statement if determined useful by the cataloger.” ** ** Email correspondence with LC clarified that since, for books, the first printing of the edition is assumed to be a likely publication date, if the item lacking a publication date contains a copyright date and a date of manufacture and the years differ, supply a date of publication that corresponds to the first printing date, in square brackets, since it is not reasonable to assume that the copyright date is a likely publication date, since it is logical to assume that the first printing date is the more likely publication date (the resource cannot be published until it is printed, once it is printed, it is likely to be immediately published, and publishers have been known to put later copyright dates on resources) ** ** I did ask LC to make this a bit more obvious in the LC PCC PS, but I’m not sure I convinced them that this would be necessary. ** ** So, based on this, I would use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add PrtD, add © ** and** I would also add the note to explain why I used the printing date rather than the © date (to help copy catalogers, not patrons): 264_1 … $c[2012] 264_3 … $c2012. 264_4 $c©2013 500 $aFirst printing, 2013. ** ** -- Example 2 Verso of book reads: ** ** Copyright © 2007 First printed in paperback 2008 ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk) ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper) ** ** Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD = 3 264_1 … $c[2008] ** ** Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add © = 4 264_1 … $c[2008] 264_4 $c©2007 ** ** Share hardcover record, but otherwise use 1st Prt to supply PubD, add
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
Mike McReynolds asked:
Can anyone explain why the information presented in the 264 field is
considered preferable or more informative than the information that
has long been contained in the 260 fields?
In a majority of cases it is not. On the other hand, we now have 264
0 for full information concerning unpublished material; in 260 only
the date was recorded. What was 260 for publisher is now 264 1. In
addition we now have 264 2 for distributor; distributor was included
in a single 260 with publisher without special subfield codes. We
now have 264 3 for manufacturer; which was 260 $e$f$g. We now have
264 4 for copyright date (which we only supply if different from
publication date; in 260 copyright substituted for publication date,
or following if different.
Of these we find 264 0. 2, and 3 improvements, but they could have
been achieved by adding 1st indicators to 260. We find 264 4 an
unneeded complication. If the distinction was needed apart from a
copyright sign, a subfield could have been added to 260.
For consistency, I hope we will stick to 260 in AACR2 records, 264 in
RDA records.
Field 260 was made repeating with first indicators for middle and
current publishers. Field 264 has second indicators for function.
The same could have been accomplished by adding second indicators to
e260.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
Martin Kelleher asked:
Does 264 1 pretty much replicate 260,
Yes, except for the absence of copyright date in 260$c, and
manufacturer in 260$e$f$g.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
Well it would mean multiplicity of location for some information between different records depending upon whether they were AACR2 or RDA, but then we’ll surely get that anyway on hybrid catalogues, and by splitting between 260/264 instead. and actually it’s not functionally more different to have everything under various permutations of 264, which represent different things depending on the indicator, which may or may not register on LMS’s.. keeping the a/b/c in 260 would have lead to a far greater consistency, especially if you often delete the e/f/g anyway as too much information/clutter! ;-) Have good weekends everyone! Cheers Martin From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Breeding, Zora Sent: 21 June 2013 17:27 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields I believe one of the reasons for not using 260 for production and 264 for the other aspects is that in pre RDA records, the 260 contains all the information on publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright. It would be impossible, therefore to have a meaningful separation of these different functions if all the legacy records mushed it all into the field you are now using for production only. Zora Breeding From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kelleher, Martin Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:21 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields ...doesn’t 264 1 pretty much replicate 260, however? Personally I would have preferred it if 264 1 could have remained 260, and 264 being for all the other, more ephemeral contributers. Any idea why they didn’t do something like that? My money’s on the fundamentalist lobby working on the same kind of level that requires all records with series entry to have both 490/830, whether they’re the same heading or not ;-) Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen Sent: 21 June 2013 16:14 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields Because the 264 allows you to have separate fields for production, publication, distribution, manufacture, and copyright, in accordance with RDA, coded so that machine processing can distinguish them. The initial testing of RDA used the 260, and based on the results it was felt that a new repeatable field with indicators was a better solution. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edumailto:steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike McReynolds Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:44 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields I've noticed that records with 264 fields and no 260 fields are starting to be imported to our catalog from OCLC. Can anyone explain why the information presented in the 264 field is considered preferable or more informative than the information that has long been contained in the 260 fields? Thank you for your thoughts on this. Mike McReynolds Cataloging / ILL Librarian Shook, Hardy Bacon Kansas City
Re: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 Fields
Martin Kelleher wrote: ...doesn't 264 1 pretty much replicate 260, however? --- In a simple scenario, yes, since we usually record publication statements from AACR2 and prior cataloging codes there. BUT, the scope of field 260 and the corresponding cataloging rules, is not just publication statements but of Publication, Distribution, etc., Statements. Pretty much is not adequate for the demands RDA is anticipated to serve. Basically, the round hole represented by field 260 is large enough to accommodate the smaller square publication statement peg we have routinely shoved into it. In reformulating the rules, we have now specified 4 separate shapes for our pegs for the purpose of being able to distinguish each corresponding statement. This then requires us to have holes specifically shaped to correspond to these new pegs. This issue was explored thoroughly in discussion paper and proposal submitted to MARBI. The new 264 field with its indicators to specify the nature of the statement was the best option (or least worst, if you will). Field 260, as currently formulated, does not serve RDA's degree of specificity at all, as evidenced by the findings of the RDA test. Amping it up with additional subfields only made the field and its data murkier. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edumailto:mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623
Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
Thank you for doing this Deborah. I find providing the 264 subfield c to be tricky these days, and it seems that perhaps the rules and/or LC-PCC PSs might need to be tweaked a little to make this clearer for all of us, so we don't see this wide variation in our records. I cringe every time I have a book which doesn't have a clear date of publication. I'm at a former RLIN institution, so we make Institution Records (IRs), so I can make a change in my own record if I disagree with what is in the master, but I'm wondering what impact this difference of interpretation will mean in OCLC? I don't know a lot about how OCLC does matching to determine if there are duplicate masters, but I know they are to be avoided. I suppose that institutions that don't make IRs can just edit the record locally, but is adding on an IR that differs in terms of what date in the first listed 264, and in the fixed fields a problem? Or is making a new master the better option? Are we going to end up with multiple master records because of 264 |c differences of interpretation? I admit to not having spent as much time with RDA as I should have by now, but I often catalog books which only have a copyright date and absolutely no other date-no printing date, no dated Preface or Introduction-no other dates anywhere. In most cases, the C year is the same as the year the item was received at my library. Rule 2.11 says to provide the copyright date if neither the date of publication, nor the date of distribution have been identified. Does this rule assume that you have a date of manufacture then, and that in MARC speak, the 264 you add with the copyright date would be a second 264? I'm just wondering why the lack of a date of manufacture isn't also mentioned as a condition for the C to be core in rule 2.11? In LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6 there is an example of a book only having a C date and the C year is the year after the year in which the item was received. In the attendant example, the C date is in square brackets in a 264 _1 (without the C symbol), and a 264 _4 with |c Cdate is added. A DtSt of t is used with the same year in Date 1 and Date 2. I'm just wondering if a book with only a C date is received in the same year as the C year, if this gives any more weight to the C date also being the year of publication, and if so, can only one 264 (with second indicator of 1, and the C year in [ ] without the C symbol) be used, and a DtSt of s with only one date in the fixed fields be used? I haven't been able to find an example of having only a C date and the C date being the same as the year the item was received in either RDA or the LC-PCC policy statements, but I may just be missing it. I know that Adam Schiff recently said that if there is a C date present in the book he always records it, which I agree with, especially in cases where a C date is the only date present in the resource. I'm wondering though, just for my own understanding of RDA and the policy statements, if there is only a C year, and that year is the year in which the book was received, if that satisfies the condition laid out in LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6, section 1: if it seems reasonable to assume that date is a likely publication date, more so than if the C date is the year after the year in which the resource was received, as seen in section 2 of LC-PCC PS 2.8.6.6. Also Deborah, in your my take on the examples, for your take on the second example, would the 500 note be a 588 note? A 588 note is used in the example in LC-PCC PS 2.10.6. If one doesn't use the actual words Description based on do you not use the 588 (Source of description note), and is a 500 (General note) more appropriate? I have not done that much cataloging in RDA yet, so I hadn't thought of adding a 5XX note to help explain my reasoning for the date (or dates) chosen for the 264 (or 264s), it does seem that a 5XX note would be very helpful, but not having any experience with the 588 field I'm just wondering if it would be used in this case rather than a 500 field. Thank you again Deborah for bringing this up. I would appreciate your advice for my questions, and that of any one else who would like to respond. Thanks very much, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Science Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:41 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing My thanks to the folks who sent in feedback on how they would handle my two date examples. As I suspected, there was considerable variation on how the dates would be entered for these resources-here is a summary, with some paraphrasing, and extrapolating, so hopefully I have interpreted all the replies correctly: Example 1 Verso of
[RDA-L] remove me
Remove me!! Mariann Kmetz Assistant Director Palmerton Area Library 610-826-3424 plab...@ptd.net
Re: [RDA-L] remove me
... is this the Hotel California of listservs ... You can check out any time you like, but they'll never let you leave ... Just a thought for Friday afternoon. John John Wagstaff Head, Music Performing Arts Library University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1114 W. Nevada Street Urbana IL61801 Tel. 217-244-4070 e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mariann Kmetz Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 3:02 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] remove me Remove me!! Mariann Kmetz Assistant Director Palmerton Area Library 610-826-3424 plab...@ptd.netmailto:plab...@ptd.net
