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
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
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 =
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
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 babra...@mit.eduwrote:
I would point out that this is not what I'm seeing in OCLC.
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
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
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 jw...@illinoisheartland.orgwrote:
AACR2 requires to record publication date and copyright date if they are
different. But RDA does not
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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--
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
