Autocatters and RDA-Lers, Objects are not published. But applying RDA literally one could have for a rock?
264 1 $a[Universe] ;$b[God?],$c[10,000 B.C.?]* 264 2 $aToronto, Ontario :$bEducational Media Inc.,$c2013. and for an iPad? 264 1 $a[No place of publication] :$b[no publisher],$c[no date of publication]** 264 3 $aMarkham, Ontario :$bApple Canada,$c2013. Seems to me a bit of common sense would have us enter the 264 2 and 3, with no 264 1. RDA needs to be revised for the description of unpublished objects, particularly if we wish museums to consider its use, and we don't want to seem ridiculous to to our patrons. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________ *Too bad JSC lost their nerve and abandoned the faith neutral B.C.E.and C.E., a;ong with other good ideas such as taking alternate title out of title proper. **I say "no place" rather than "not identified", because there is no publisher to identify. "Publisher" does not mean "manufacturer in English, whatever the RDA definition may say.