Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

2013-01-28 Thread Paradis Daniel
Patricia Fogler asked : How useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s have duplicate dates in the 008 date area? The Canadian Committee on MARC felt exactly the same way when Proposal 2011-02, which included examples of duplicate dates in the 008 field, was discussed by

Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

2013-01-28 Thread J. McRee Elrod
Patricia asked: Do we advise copy catalogers to edit to 264 or let all variations pass if essentially correct for when they were cataloged (as best they can tell!) We will instruct that 264 4 be deleted if the $c is the same as 264 1, that date type be s, and only date 1 be coded, whether

Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

2013-01-28 Thread Buzz Haughton
I have found this 264 _1 with 264 _4 coding to be a major time consumer when using RDA. For my local system, I must now copy what I put in 264 _4, e.g. ©2010 into 264 _1, delete the former, and then download. I fail to see what the repetition of what I put into these two MARC fields accomplishes