A slight tangent from the conversation: In the interest of trying to learn about the 264 in RDA, I looked at the MARC Bibliographic to RDA Mapping in the RDA Toolkit, & the 264 isn't there. Likewise, & perhaps more surprisingly, the 264 also isn't in the RDA to MARC Bibliographic Mapping.
Please be aware that I am very unfamiliar with the RDA Toolkit so it is possible that I'm not looking in the right place or don't understand what I'm seeing. However, it would seem to me that the 264 would be mentioned in at least one of these places. Can someone explain why it's not there? Or if it is there, can you tell me how to find it? --- Monica Boyer Technical Services Manager Jackson County Public Library <http://www.myjclibrary.org/> (812)522-3412 ext. 1226 *Please consider the environment before printing this email.* On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Deborah Fritz <debo...@marcofquality.com>wrote: > *From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Arakawa, Steven > *Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2013 10:39 AM**** > > ** ** > > [SA]<if you have a bracketed date in 264 _1 based on the copyright date, > the 264 _4 is optional, if I’m interpreting LC PCC PS correctly>**** > > *[DF:] Yes, if you use the copyright date to supply the date in 264_1, > then adding the copyright date is optional, but I think it is a good thing > to add it, as long as the copyright date is straightforward. * > > * * > > *Deborah* > > * * > > - - - - - - - - **** > > Deborah Fritz**** > > TMQ, Inc.**** > > debo...@marcofquality.com**** > > www.marcofquality.com**** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
