You are mixing the content rules (RDA) with the MARC coding. Multiple 260s
were intended to provide consistent coding for publication information
regardless of whether it was to be recorded in the publication area or in a
note. When AACR2 Chapter 12 was revised in 2002, a decision was made to
preserve the distinction between area 4 and notes on area 4 in the rules;
at the same time, a decision was made NOT to make this distinction at the
tag level in the MARC encoding (the distinction can be made using an
indicator). Mac Elrod considers this to be a grievous inconsistency and
has been complaining ever since.
Personally, I am tempted to see the distinction between formal statements
and notes to be a matter of presentation. It is necessary perhaps to
distinguish between data transcribed from a source and information supplied
by a cataloger; in this case, I think that both current and former
publication information falls into the former category. If we are serious
about eliminating instructions about the presentation of information from
RDA, then I would like to see the distinction between formal statements and
notes reconsidered.
On the other hand, it is important to remember that MARC 21 encoding must
support both the recording of data according to RDA and also the display of
data according to various presentation standards, some of which will
undoubtedly continue to distinguish between formal statements and notes.
The important difference in purpose between content and encoding standards
may be even more important than in the past.
John Attig
Cataloging Services
Penn State University Libraries
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 04:24 PM 1/12/2006, Renette Davis wrote:
2.7.0.7. Change in name of publisher, distributor, etc.
RD - Category a (Resources issued in two or more parts simultaneously)
says, "Make notes on differences in the name of a publisher, distributor,
etc., from one part to another ... " and category b (Resources issued in
successive parts) says "If the name of the publisher changes on a
subsequent issue or part and this change does not require a new description
(see 8.3), record the later name in a note ... ". My question is: Whatever
happened to multiple 260s? I thought multiple 260s were eventually going to
be used for situations like this.
2.7.4.4. Change in name of publisher, distributor, etc. [Notes on]
RD - If multiple 260s are used, categories a and b would need to be
changed. Probably only the last sentence would be needed. I can't really
see multiple 260s working for integrating resources, so category c would
probably need to stay.
2.8.0.6. Change in place of publication, distribution, etc.
RD - Same question as in 2.7.0.7 above.
2.8.5.4. Change in place of publication, distribution, etc. [Notes on]
RD - Same comments as in 2.7.4.4 above.
