Re: [RDA-L] GMD revisited

Julie Moore asked: >Has anyone come up with any other options or solutions as the RDA cutover >date for the national and PCC libraries nears? (2 months to go!) The best option we have seen are icons based on fixed fields, and suppressing 33X from display. Next best, I think, is displaying [338 :

[RDA-L] GMD revisited

Please excuse the cross-posting ... Dear All, It is safe to say that many catalogers are disastisfied with the 336-338 as a replacement for the GMD. I know that many people are opting to do some sort of awkward work-around to insert a GMD into RDA records that come into their systems. (I really d

Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record

Rich McRae asked: >When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate mani= >festations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliogr= >aphic records should be created? ... That is my understanding, just as it was mandated by AACR2. So far, so far as I know

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

Freta said: > >The LC-PCC-PS was recently updated to indicate that the requirement was to = >infer the date of publication from the copyright date and bracket it, but i= >t no longer says to record the copyright date. Therefore, following this p= >ractice, one would have a bracketed date in the 2

Re: [RDA-L] Carrier type "Flipchart"

> There are some published flipcharts. Here is a bibliographic record for one: > http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/225434076 and a number of cataloged kits include flipcharts. Daniel -- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Brooks Library Ellensburg, WA 98926 "W

Re: [RDA-L] Carrier type "Flipchart"

-- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Brooks Library Ellensburg, WA 98926 "Wearing the sensible shoes proudly since 1977!" >>> On 1/30/13 at 2:55 PM, John Hostage wrote: > There are some published flipcharts. Here is a bibliographic record for one: > http://w

Re: [RDA-L] Carrier type "Flipchart"

There are some published flipcharts. Here is a bibliographic record for one: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/225434076 -- John Hostage Authorities and Database Integrity Librarian Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services Langdell Hall 194 Cambridge

[RDA-L] UNSUBSCRIBE

Thanks, * * Ani Boyadjian* * Central Library, Research & Special Collections 213. 228-7223 voice mail

Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record

Thank you, Kevin-- your response is most informative. I'll bring up the advisability of separate records at a future in-house meeting, but for the time being, seeing that we're wouldn't be "out of line" by what we're doing presently, we'll stay the course until a future decision reverses our cur

Re: [RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record

Rick McRae wrote: > When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate > manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two > bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and that, > with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description,

Re: [RDA-L] Carrier type "Flipchart"

I think it refers to a type of childrens' (or educational) resource that is published and intended to be used in the classroom. E.g.: http://www.staples.com/Calendar-Time-Sing-Along-Flip-Chart-and-CD/product_753900?cid=PS:GooglePLAs:753900&KPID=753900 Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator

[RDA-L] 2 manifestations on one bibliographic record

Greetings- When there is a digitized copy made of a hard-copy item- both separate manifestations according to FRBR, is it mandated by RDA rules that two bibliographic records should be created? Or is this an option, and that, with the proper coding (00x, 33x, etc.) and description, hybrid recor

[RDA-L] Carrier type "Flipchart"

In our regional cataloging experts group, we were dicussing RDA carrier types yesterday. We were completely mystified why flip charts warrant a carrier type of their own ("flipchart"). We found it very hard to imagine any library or other institution collecting flip charts, in the first place.

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

Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date was also in that field, which you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a copyright date without the symbol or words to that effect. greta - Original Message - From: "Nancy Lorimer" To: "Resource Description and Access / Resou

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

Oh, no offense taken--i just noticed that it was a Stanford University Press book so i figured it was one of our CIP contributions. And it was probably done under the original test policy. And, i should point out, that not everyone at Stanford is necessarily following the same policy--our loca

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

I very much appreciate your detailed reply. I want to hasten to clarify that I wasn’t trying to point out any institution as doing anything wrong or nonstandard. Merely citing an example (of a record that looked to be done by the rules but rules that were confusing me). Getting the blow-by-b

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

I will add one thing to Greta's very clear explanation. While the field explicitly states that this is a copyright date, it does not state what type of copyright date is being recorded. There are two types of copyright date--copyright for text (the (c) date) and the phonogram copyright date (t

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

Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would like to offer a little in the way of explanation. Steven is right, the initial RDA test instructions for pieces which lacked a date of publication were to record the copyright date if it appeared on the piece, and to

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

When you are entering both a publication date and a copyright day in either 260 or two 264 fields, and you are coding the publication date in Date1 and the copyright date in the 008 Date2, Date Type must be 't' because: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008a.html "t - Publication date and cop

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

I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in OCLC: If you're using 264s, and the date of publication and the date of copyright are the same, which is the proper code in the Date Type, s or t? Sevim McCutcheon Catalog Librarian, Asst. Prof. Kent State University Librari

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

Regardless of Berne convention and laws, don't confuse the surrogate for the item described. I don't think I copyright statement on the _cataloging record_ but refering to the copyright of the item described ever played any legal role in establishing copyright on the item described, even in cas

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

Although the copyright symbol is necessary for a copyright statement, members of this list from nations that have signed the Berne Convention For The Protection of Literary and Artistic Works should know that copyright statements are no longer necessary. Under the Berne Convention, all publishe

Re: [RDA-L] back to: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 264 documentation

Current LC & PCC practice for 2.8.6.6 is in the LC PCC PS, which is up to date in the Toolkit; recording the copyright date in 264 _4 is optional (not mandatory). The copyright date was mandatory (core) during the RDA testing, so it was routinely applied during that period. See the January 11 20

[RDA-L] back to: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 264 documentation

I realize the documentation for RDA is evolving. I think that's one of my chief problems. Every time I think I get a handle on a small detail such as this 260|c copyright date, I find different information. I wanted to copy this LC PS into my training materials, but when I looked it up, I fin

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

I agree with Jenny: I would love to know the reasoning behind this. As for machine actionable: although I’m no great programmer, I do know that anyone building something using the copyright date would have to insert at least one line of code to strip out the copyright symbol. However, depending

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

I too have wondered about this - an instruction to record copyright date is fine, but given that, in MARC, 264 #4 $c means copyright date, why should we need to insert the © symbol before it? Jenny Wright Development Manager Bibliographic Data Services Ltd. -Original Message- From