John Attig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mac Elrod considers this* to be a grievous inconsistency and has been
>complaining ever since.
When we first have a client library which has an ILS sophisticated
enough to put 260 3 as imprint (with other 260(s) as note(s)) for an
integrating resource, but 260 3 as note for a serial, I'll consider no
longer complaining!
If RDA adopts repeating imprint, with the order the same for all media
(whether first to current, or current back to first), I will certainly
stop complaining. BTW, what's wrong with that? It's better than
being untruthful in brief displays and printed lists for serials as we
now are. My clients who keep current year only of a serial could not
care less who published issue one.
MARC tags for fields (for ease of comprehension and programming)
should correspond to AACR2/RDA placement of elements.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
*MARC21 repeating 260.
