I asked LChelp4rda this same question last year. LC's reply was that we must
remember that implicit in the definition of 'Core' is the 1.3 wording:
"elements that are applicable and readily ascertainable"
Quoting from the LC reply:
"So, for a published resource, date of publication is applicable by
definition (it was published), even though not always readily ascertainable
(which is why you are given instructions for supplying one, or using the
textual fallback).
However, not all resources (most resources?) never give information that the
manifestation has a distributor or manufacturer. If these statements aren't
'applicable' to the resource, then they are not core, thus you wouldn't have
to record the 264s with second indicator 2 or 3 unless you were given
information that a distributor or manufacturer was involved. In other
words, we don't assume that we have an *unknown* distributor/manufacturer."
So, LC's take on this is that a single 264_1 is sufficient, *if no
distribution or manufacture info is available*:
264 #1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b [publisher not
identified], $c [not before 1992]
And that RDA does not require:
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]
Given that you and I and others have had this same question, it would be
good if the wording for these instructions could be clarified. Who wants to
suggest a proposal to CC:DA?
Deborah
- - - - - - - -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
debo...@marcofquality.com
www.marcofquality.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:48 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA 2.8 through 2.10, and Core status
RDA 2.9 states that place of distribution, and distributor's name, are core
elements when the corresponding publisher elements are not identified.
Likewise, 2.10 states that place of manufacture, and manufacturer's name,
are core elements when the corresponding publisher and distributor elements
are not identified.
At a cataloger discussion meeting we had this morning, a question came up
concerning what exactly is meant by these core statements. Is something
"not identified" if the element is just left out, or is it "not identified"
if the element is given in the record as "[Place of publication not
identified]" etc.?
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]
In our library, we all agree that the series of three 264 fields is patently
ridiculous. Yet we are not in agreement as to what RDA tells us is actually
required.
Thankfully we had *something* to put in for the date!!! Maybe we should
have come up with some data other than the "not identified" phrase for the
other elements, and had a 264 such as:
264 #1 $a [Earth] : $b [Publisher of (name of the work)], $c [not
before 1992]
Have other libraries dealt with this question?
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
