[RDA-L] KEY TITLE INDICATING ONLINE AVAILABILITY

In the past I have indicated online availability of journals by adding $b(Online) to the key title. Example below. Now that the GMD is no longer used in the 245 field is this still permitted? Journal of sound and vibration|b(Online) Thank you Cynthia Warren Technical Services Dept.

[RDA-L] 264 question

I have a self-published monograph which contains only this publication information: Made in the USA, Charleston, SC, 07 June 2013. Do I make a 264 1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] and a 264 3 Charleston, SC : $b [Manufacturer not

Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language

I initially thought that RDA does not involve encoding. MARC encoding is another thing and technique. But it is hard, at least so far, to completely distinguish RDA, a resource description rule, from MARC encoding. We still can see shades of MARC encoding in RDA rules. For example, the optional

Re: [RDA-L] KEY TITLE INDICATING ONLINE AVAILABILITY

The Key Title (tagged in MARC field 222) is a title assigned by an ISSN agency, and is tied to the ISSN number (MARC field 022). To my knowledge, it has never been correct to make any additions or changes to the Key Title. Technically, it is permissible to make such changes in one's local

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

That is certainly one correct possible way to do this. Your other option would be to take a best guess at the place of publication and then you wouldn't need the second 264. Two possibilities: 264 _1 [Charleston, South Carolina?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] or 264 _1 [United

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

If you know it's been self-published by the author, wouldn't it be ok to put the author's name in the $b? (In brackets, I suppose, as there's no publication statement on the sources of information.) 264 x1 $a [United States] : $b [John Q. Author], $c [2013] --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

Mary Saunders said: I have a self-published monograph... As you say, it is self published. The author is the publisher. So: 264 1 $a[Charleston, South Carolina?] :$bJoe Blow,$c[2013] Do I make a 264 1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [Publish= er not identified], $c

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

Would any patron be helped by all that verbiage? I do wonder whether it's any business of the patron? Only half joking! Ford -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question

Adam Schiff posted: 264 _1 [Charleston, South Carolina?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] In this case, the publisher IS identified. It's the authhor. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/

Re: [RDA-L] Translated from notes and code for original language

Bob, admittedly, it would never have occured to me that a language preferred by the agency creating the data could also be a code language. But if that's a legitimate interpretation, then of course I'm all for it. Not for the first time, I find that I need to learn to read RDA in a somewhat

Re: [RDA-L] 264 question for self published item

I said: 264 _1 [Charleston, South Carolina?] : $b [Publisher not identified], $c [2013] In this case, the publisher IS identified. It's the author. For self published items, Lubetsky would have had us say The Author. Later we would have entered the author's name with given name(s) reduced