Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

[Beth Guay]

I'm hung up on the RDA instruction for  recording a copyright date as a symbol 
or  spelled out element conjoined to a text string otherwise known as a date. 
It seems to me, that here we have an excellent effort to carry our data from 
MARC to linked data format through use of a newly defined 264 field, and rather 
than entering data (the date) into the area (264 second indicator 4 $c) that 
contains data  defined as copyright date, we enter a symbol plus a date, or a 
spelled out word plus a date. What we are transcribing is not a date but a 
symbol plus a date. Is it a string or a thing?
http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/5.html 

Is  ©2002 machine actionable? 

Shouldn't it be up to the content display system to supply the symbol or 
spelled out element -- © or copyright or ℗ or phonogram? Have there been any 
successful efforts that anyone is aware of which is a system that serves up 
labeled data elements from a complex combination of elements in the leader 008 
field byte 06 DtSt,  byte 07-10 Date 1 and byte 11-14 Date 2?   

Beth

-


Beth Guay
Continuing and Electronic Resources Cataloger 
Metadata Services Department
2200 McKeldin Library, University of Maryland 
College Park, Maryland 20742

(301) 405-9339
fax (301) 314-9971
bag...@umd.edu 


-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Snow, Karen
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:58 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question

Patricia Folger wrote:
The former coding in OCLC looks like overkill --  How 
useful/necessary/correct is it to code this dtst to other than s  have 
duplicate dates in the 008 date area?

I'm not sure I understand the problem here. Publication dates and copyright 
dates are not the same, even if they share the same year.  They are discreet 
data elements. That is why 264_1 $c and 264_4 $c were created in the first 
place, to better distinguish the dates and make them more machine-actionable.

Warm regards,

Karen Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate School of Library  Information Science Dominican University
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL  60305
ks...@dom.edu
708-524-6077 (office)
708-524-6657 (fax)

6.1.7.0.1

[Beth Guay]

I assume the particular example is of a resource identifier in
conjunction with an access point. If so, I'd expect to see the order
reversed, i.e., Continued by: University of Western Australia law review
= ISSN 0042-0328.


--


Beth Guay
Monographs/Continuing Resources Cataloger
McKeldin Library, University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742


(301) 405-9339
fax (301) 314-9971
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Comments on RDA draft 6.10

[Beth Guay]

Renette Davis wrote:


6.10.2.2.1b.1 - Why would you want to provide an access point for the
succeeding resource? Wouldn't that be an earliest entry record?



I agree completely -- AACR2 21.28  includes in its terminology
continuations and sequels for examples,  yet 21.28B1 offers not a
single example of a serial predecessor/successor as an added entry --
Common sense tells me not to add an access point for an earlier title on
the catalog record of the later title of the serial that I am describing
(for I would be leading the catalog user to the wrong bibliographic
record), while I do want to provide a link to the earlier title on the
catalog record of the later title of the serial that I am describing,
should the user desire to follow it.


Thank goodness 6.10 is an optional element.


Beth Guay
Monographs/Continuing Resources Cataloger
McKeldin Library, University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742


(301) 405-9339
fax (301) 314-9971
[EMAIL PROTECTED]