Joan Wang posted:
>
>264 1 $a [Illinois?] : $b [publisher not identified], $c [1860]
>264 3 $a Belleville, Illinois : $b Rupp und Grimm, $c 1860.
IMNSHO this is more than enough; the 264 2 is not needed. (The
indicators are in the wrong order; a resource has to be manufactured
before it is d
Sorry. Should be option 2.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Joan Wang wrote:
> I feel that the answer should be option 1. A similar case is for copyright
> date. A copyright date is only required if neither date of publication nor
> date of distribution is identified. So far I only have seen rec
I feel that the answer should be option 1. A similar case is for copyright
date. A copyright date is only required if neither date of publication nor
date of distribution is identified. So far I only have seen records with
two dates: a probable publication date, and a copyright date. I haven't
gott
Hi, all
I have a question about manufacture statement. Generally manufacture
statement is only required if neither publication nor distribution
statement is identified.
Does that mean I should have two 264 fields (with like [publisher not
identified] and [distributor not identified]) before the t
4 matches
Mail list logo
