>So, would we just ignore CIP information that would normally go in a
>transcription field?
In most cases, the CIP information is in the LC or LAC record which
was upgraded from a CIP one. We would not remove nor bracket that
information; it is in the item.
Of course one must be aware of earlier CIP printed in a later edition,
and of changes which might have happened during the publishing
process. Title page information would supersede older CIP
information, although the CIP information might also be included,
e.g., a changed title in 246; the item might have been listed as a
"forthcoming book" with the earlier title.
While 588 is usually used for sources outside the item, it could be
used to note CIP derived data. Better CIP data than "[.... not
identified]", which would not be true if in the CIP.
Let's be pragmatic in supplying all available ISBD information.
Perhaps a publisher might feel it is not necessary to include
information twice, particularly the LCCN and ISBN.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
It's not unusual for me to find an edition and/or series statement
only in the CIP. Is it best not to record information for these
fields if it appears only in the CIP data, or should it be bracketed
with maybe a note identifying the source?
