Deborah said:
I agree with you, Michelle--I think we might be looking at Production =
rather than Publication + Printing. I don't think you can put the =
Publication details for the original in the record for the reproduction.
The library is neither producing, publishing, nor reproducing the
I think in RDA you would supply:
264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not identified],
$c [date of publication not identified]
264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of printing]
And then you would include a 776 field with:
776 08 $i Reproduction
Oops, I made an error in my 776: There would be a subfield $a for the creator
if any, followed by $t for title proper, and then $d would be where you put the
publication information about the original:
776 08 $i Reproduction of (manifestation): $a Creator if any. $t Title proper of original
25.09.2013 17:44, Jack Wu:
... after some length of time, will the rule become the
alternative again, and the alternative again become the rule? Will
East and West, in this case, English and German, ever meet? No
wonder there are endless change proposals and endless updating.
Try as I
Would the scope of privately printed resources under Publication Statement in
LC-PCC PS 2.8.1.1 not also cover local printouts of a published online resource?
If an organization or individual prints out copies for local use, and these are
cataloged, then it seems who issued or released the
I am cataloging a locally produced videodisc reproduction of a
videocassette for our local history department (and will have many more,
as the videocassettes are all being replaced by videodiscs). As I
understand it, the 346 $b is to indicate the broadcast characteristics
of the videodisc. Do
Adam said:
I think in RDA you would supply:
264 _1 [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not
identified], $c [date of publication not identified]
264 _3 [Place of printing] : $b [place of printing], $c [date of
printing]
But you DO know the place, publisher and date for the
Mac,
I was speculating about what one would do if adhering strictly to RDA.
But I could be persuaded by Thomas Brenndorfer's argument that the
publisher of the printout is the agency that printed it out. I would also
be content with a decision to apply the provider-neutral guidelines in
Carolyn Phillips posted:
346 $b is to indicate the broadcast characteristics
of the videodisc. Do I leave this off because I don't know what it is?
I would not use this field. Stick with 538 for that type of information.
The new 34X fields fragment information.
Also, I do not find a
I would tie two RDA instructions together:
RDA 1.1.2 The term 'resource' is used in chapters 2-4 to refer to a
manifestation or item.
RDA 2.8.1.1 A publication statement is a statement identifying the place or
places of publication, publisher or publishers, and date or dates of
publication of
Thomas quoted:
When a facsimile or reproduction has a publication statement or
statements relating to the original manifestation as well as to the
facsimile or reproduction, record the publication statement or
statements relating to the facsimile or reproduction. Record any
publication statement
Current LC-PCC PS on Related Manifestations, RDA 27.1:
The word reproduction is being used in its broadest sense ...
and
When the decision has been made to create a separate record for the
reproduction, generally follow the guidelines below for giving MARC 775 and
MARC 776 fields. The
I agree with you Thomas, that if the entity that does a photocopy or a printout
of a digital resource produces multiple copies, then that must mean they are
for distribution and therefore are published. But what if they make only one
copy? In that case, since it is an analog copy, it is not
Mac says: These are not reproductions in the sense that facsimiles are
reproductions.
I think that is actually the crux of the matter here. What are printouts of
electronic files really?
They are certainly not the same manifestations as the originals because they
have different carriers
Whenever you are wondering about whether or not you *must* enter data (under
RDA) you need to check the Core instructions for that data.
If you are starting from a MARC element (346$b) then you go to the Toolkit, and
look under the Tools tab and RDA Mappings, and MARC Bibliographic to RDA
15 matches
Mail list logo
