Joseph, the 264 field is the RDA equivalent to the 260 field of AACR2 cataloging. My understanding is that if you are cataloging a record using RDA, and have coded your record as an RDA record, that you should use the 264 field. It seems the 264 did not yet exist when the Library of Congress and its testing partners were creating RDA records during the testing period, so you will not see the 264 field in the RDA records from the testing period, but in the Library of Congress's newer materials relating to RDA they show the 264 field rather than the 260 field, and the 264 field appears in the LC-PCC Policy Statements to RDA. If you are cataloging a record utilizing AACR2, you would continue to use the 260 field. I don't know for certain, but it seems you could also use the 264 field in an AACR2 record if your institution makes a distinction between functions (publication, printing, distribution, issue, release or production), but I don't believe it works the other way around, if you are coding your bibliographic record as RDA, I don't believe you should use the 260 field.
(If anyone else on the list feels I've made errors in my commentary, please correct me!) Sincerely, Dana Van Meter Cataloging Librarian Historical Studies-Social Library Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 vanme...@ias.edu From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joe Scott Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] 260 and 264 I've sent this message to both MOUG-L and RDA-L. Apologies for the duplication to those who subscribe to both. Can anyone provide further guidance on whether/when to use 260 or 264 (or both?). (Apologies if this is obvious to everyone but me.) Both are listed in LC/MARC/Bibliographic as (R[epeatable]), but the field definitions and scope statements read: 260 "Information relating to the publication, printing, distribution, issue, release, or production of a work. For unpublished items or materials that are collectively controlled, this field may not be included in a record or may contain only subfield $c (Date of publication, distribution, etc.). Information in field 260 is similar to information in field 264 (Production, Publication, Distribution, Manufacture, and Copyright Notice). Field 260 is useful for cases where the content standard or institutional policies used do not make a distinction between functions." 264 "Statement relating to the publication, printing, distribution, issue, release, or production of a work. Information in field 264 is similar to information in field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)). Field 264 is useful for cases where the content standard or institutional policies make a distinction between functions." This leads me to believe: 260 should make a single, complete statement of the available data. Expected to be required in most cases. 264 should be used [in addition to 260] when a "distinction between functions" needs to be expressed [or coded], and that 264 would be used as many times as needed to express the number of "distinction between functions" needed, one each (as may be applicable) for each of the five Second Indicators. Does this make sense to any/everyone? Thanks, Joe Joseph W. Scott Music Catalog/Metadata Librarian University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06029-1005
<<inline: image002.gif>>
