My comments interspersed below. --Adam
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Buzz Haughton wrote:
Hello, Pamela!
LC announced the implementation of the 264 MARC field in June. The last time I
looked, OCLC still had nothing about
it, but you can get the basic layout at:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html
AS: OCLC Technical Bulletin 261
(http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/tb/261/default.htm)
discusses the implementation of field 264 and it says to follow the PCC
guidelines available at
http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/264-Guidelines.doc.
264 requires a second indicator, usually #1 (publication) and/or #4
(copyright). We're now also supposed to add
another 264 with just $c; examples are given at the above website.
AS: If you are recording a copyright date in addition to a date of
publication, that copyright statement goes alone in $c in its own 264 with
second indicator value of 4. But remember that copyright date is only a
core element when neither date of publication nor date of distribution is
available.
My OCLC template still only supplies 260.
AS: If you are using an AACR2 template, you will get 260. If you switch
to having Connexion supply an RDA template you get 26_. But all newly
created RDA records should be using 264 and never 260.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Pam Withrow <withr...@perma-bound.com> wrote:
RDA Toolkit says this information goes in the 260 field, but this isn't
the first time I've seen the 264
field used. Could someone please clarify?
Thanks,
Pamela Withrow
Cataloger
Perma-Bound Books
Jacksonville, IL 62650
**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff *
* Principal Cataloger *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 *
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* asch...@u.washington.edu *
**************************************
