Thanks to everyone who advised about 34X use, and apologies for delayed
thanks - I was waiting to see if there were any different strategy
suggestions.  We'll assess how much 34X work could be covered by
templates and fixes and how much it would add to work on individual
records before deciding what to do.

Best wishes,
Bernadette

******************* 
Bernadette O'Reilly 
Catalogue Support Librarian 
01865 2-77134 
Bodleian Libraries, 
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
******************* 


-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Fox, Chris
Sent: 26 April 2013 16:58
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Using 344-347?

I've been told that, for now, information in the 34X fields can and
should continue to be duplicated in the 007 and the 538 (NTSC or PAL,
etc.), until such time as ILSs catch up.  So in the limited RDA A/V
cataloging I have done, everything that I'm putting in 34X is also
somewhere else in the MARC record.  I know it's duplication of effort,
but we've been doing that for years with fixed field coding and info in
the variable fields, and rather than making an exception to RDA (the
more exceptions made, the more they need to be remembered and
documented), I just do what it says.  Hopefully it works out, because
I'm not smart enough to figure it out myself.
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:04 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Using 344-347?

Bernadette O'Reilly asked:

>- whether other agencies expect to use 34X straight away or will 
>continue to use 300 $b at least until LC-PCC and specialist bodies 
>produce best practice guidelines

SLC will continue to use 300 :$b, and will not code 34X, in part for
consistency with legacy records (it would be difficult to program this
change retrospectively), but mainly so that this helpful information
will be in brief display without requiring clients to remap their OPACs.

We don't know what will happen with Bibframe, particularly to the
equivalent information to 34X in fixed fields.  We may have to revisit
the matter then.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

Reply via email to