Benjamin said:
>534 or 7xx is better than nothing but I continue to think the old way
>(using 533 for the reproduction information, 260--now 264, for the
>publication information of the original) puts the bibliographical
>information that users are interested in where they are most likely
>to look.
Either 533 or 534 puts one aspect in a note, and not in brief display.
Using either in AACR2 260$a$b$c for original publisher, and 260$e$f$g
from the micro producer; or in RDA 264 1 for the print publisher with
264 3 for the micro producer, puts all information where "they are
most likely to look".
The original publisher influenced content, not the micro producer, so
is more important to know for content evaluation. Some electronic
aggregators add value, but that information is lost if the PN standard
is followed.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
