On the OLAC list, there has been a discussion of 264 coding for
manufactured equipment and naturally occurring objects.
It seems to me that these are not published, so that for equipment 264
3 would be the proper indicator, and for naturally occurring objects
264 2, in order to have the correct label (if the ILS bases labels
on indicators), and in order to have a distinctive term tag when/if
transferred to Bibframe.
RDA as now written does not require a "not identified" publisher
statement (264 1) when recording producer (264 0), but is so book
centric some rewording is needed to allow the use of manufacturer (264
3r, and distributor (264 2), when there is no publisher to be
"identified". Perhaps something along the lines of "when there is no
publisher, such as for manufactured and naturally occurring objects,
manufacturer or distributor should be recorded"?
It is contrary to patron understanding of terminology to call the
manufacturer of an iPad, or the distributor of a rock, a "publisher".
Neither 264 1 nor 264 0 is suitable for either of these.
Mark, perhaps you could include this in your RDA revision
proposal(s)?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
