I am sending this to several other lists besides RDA-L. Apologies for duplication. I am also cc'ing to some people who have been involved in discussions of the Digital Library Federation's Registry of Digital Masters Record Creation Guidelines and who I haven't seen on the RDA list. If you wonder why in the world you got this, that's probably why! My comments are below Mac's original post with RD beside each paragraph.
Renette At 11:19 AM 12/30/2005, Mac Elrod wrote on the RDA-L list:
The LCRI turning AACR2 on its head for reproductions fortunately (from my point of view) did not make it into RDA. In 2.2.2 (choice of prime source), 2.3.1.5 (title), 2.5.0.4 (edition statement), 2.10.9.4 (series), as well as 2.12.0.4 and 4.10.2 we are told to choose the facsimile in hand for transcription, rather than the item reproduced. This nicely avoids the problem created by reproductions of reproductions, attempting to follow the LCRI.
RD - I would actually like to see an option to describe the original and include the reproduction information in a note, as in the current LCRI 1.11A, particularly for electronic reproductions. I believe that users are most interested in the date, place of publication, publisher, etc., of the original rather than when and by whom it was digitized. An ISBN in a note (as specified in 2.12.0.4) is not as easily searchable as an ISBN in an 020 field. RD - We are using a single record approach here at the University of Chicago, adding access to the electronic version on the record for the print version. However, if we don't have the print version (or we are discarding the print version), we create a separate record for the electronic version. It is much easier to derive a reproduction record from the print version record, than to create a new record describing the electronic version. As we move into more digitization for preservation purposes, I think this is an important consideration. RD - In addition, the Digital Library Federation's Registry of Digital Masters Record Creation Guidelines available at http://www.diglib.org/collections/reg/DigRegGuide.htm recommend describing the original version with information on the reproduction in a 533 note.
