I posted to MARC:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-dp01.html
The MARBI discussion paper suggesting new subfields for RDA imprint
elements would create more granularity.
But I suspect there would considerable confusion between 260$a$b$c and
260$k$l$m. It seems to be it would be better to redefine $a$b$c to
apply only to publisher for a particular date forward.
It is certainly advantageous to have subfields to record place, name,
and date of production in manuscripts in $h$i$j. The omission of this
information has long been a handicap for patrons.
It does seem better to me to have the additional subfields (with the
exception of $k$l$m) than to have additional fields.
*260 - Publication, Distribution, etc.(Imprint) (R)
$a - Place of publication distribution, etc. (R)
$b - Name of publisher, distributor, etc. (R)
$c - Date of publication, distribution, etc. (R)
$e - Place of manufacture (R)
$f - Name of manufacturer (R) NAME CHANGE
$g - Date of manufacture (R)
$h - Place of production (R) NEW
$i - Name of producer (R) NEW
$j - Date of production (R) NEW
$k - Place of publication (R) NEW
$l - Name of publisher (R)
NEW $m - Date of publication (R) NEW
$n - Place of distribution (R) NEW
$o - Name of distributor (R) NEW
$p - Date of distribution (R) NEW
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
--
***********************************************************************
AUTOCAT quoting guide: http://www.cwu.edu/~dcc/Autocat/copyright.html
E-mail AUTOCAT listowners: autocat-requ...@listserv.syr.edu
Search AUTOCAT archives: http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/autocat.html
By posting messages to AUTOCAT, the author does not cede copyright
***********************************************************************
