I know it is an axiom of American cataloging that the cataloging code and the communications format are unconnected, but I hope that in implementing RDA the MARC 21 format will be amended to allow the automatic generation (for display) of these few predictable text strings from some coded values--we've still got a free indicator position in the 260 field--which would guarantee consistency in their appearance (no typos), save the time of the cataloger, and would eliminate the problem of using English-language phrases in records destined for international exchange.
Ed Jones -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schupbach ,Mr William Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 5:36 AM To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 2.7.1.3; 2.8.1.3; 2.9.1.3: place, name or date unknown or merely unstated? This is NOT about whether English words or the present Romance abbreviations should be used, but about how the English should be worded if English words are eventally adopted in place of s.l. or s.n. It is about the proposed use of the word "unknown". It is one thing if the document being catalogued carries no place of publication, name of publisher, or date of publication. It is quite another thing to claim that they are "unknown". They may be unknown to the person cataloguing them, but that's more of a statement about the mind of the cataloguer than about the document. It's subjective. And as such it's not appropriate to be in this part (or possibly any part) of the record. It may also be inaccurate: there may be extensive literature about the publishing of the work, naming the place and the publisher, using archival evidence. This often happens when a series of prints carries the publisher's name on some but not all of the prints, or when the publisher's name has been erased, and the cataloguer has only one of the prints without the publisher's name to go on. 2.9.5.3 (date of production) allows for "undated". That's getting near it: it means not explicitly dated in the document. However, I don't like that either, because it's ambiguous: some manuscripts can be very accurately "dated" from internal evidence, and they are then said to be, of course, "dated", and therefore not "undated". For place and publisher I'd prefer any of these (if English words are adopted): [no place] [place unstated] [place unnamed] [place not given] [no name] [no publisher] [publisher unstated] [publisher unnamed] [publisher not given] On dates, I'm sending a separate message, as there is only a limited range of possible dates, whereas names of places and publishers are virtually infinite. By abandoning "unknown", RDA will be able to produce better results than, for instance, those slide libraries which describe visual works as "artist unknown" when the artist is Leonardo da Vinci or Raphael--not exactly "unknowns". Specifically on 2.8.1.3, is it really necessary to say "Place of publication" rather than just "Place"? After all, when we enter "Den Haag" or "[Spain?]", we don't say that the place mentioned is the place of publication. William Schupbach Wellcome Library, 210 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, England E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Catalogue: http://catalogue.wellcome.ac.uk/search/X [British registered charity no. 210183]
