Hi Kevin and all, I just finished the first draft of a document for our local RDA training that addresses this exact issue.
In my take on it, for the situation you describe only the first 264 below with second indicator 1 is needed; if you also cannot identify any distribution or manufacture data or the copyright date, just don't use those 264 fields (with second indicator 2, 3, or 4). I base this on the fact that place of publication, publisher's name, and date of publication are core elements, period, no qualification, whereas the rest is all "core if". I would say I'm happy to be proven wrong about this, but that would be a lie. Having to use more fields when you have less data is just crazy. Trina On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Kevin M Randall <k...@northwestern.edu>wrote: [...] > We had the case of a resource that contained no identifiable data > regarding its emanation, and could have come from almost anywhere in the > world. What we have so far (in a MARC encoding of the data) is: > > 264 #1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher > not identified], $c [not before 1992] > > The statements on core status don't say "If ... is not recorded". Rather, > they say "If ... is not identified". Thus it seems to me that a strict > reading of the instructions would require something like: > > 264 #1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher > not identified], $c [not before 1992] > 264 #2 $a [Place of distribution not identified] : $b [distributor > not identified] > 264 #3 $a [Place of manufacture not identified] : $b [manufacturer > not identified] > [...] Trina Pundurs Serials Cataloger Library Collection Services University of California, Berkeley tpund...@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1990
