Apologies for duplicate postings!
You are invited to join the ALCTS CaMMS Copy Cataloging Interest Group on
Saturday, January 26, 8:30-10:00 AM at the Renaissance Seattle Hotel - Compass
South.
Angela Kinney, Chief, African, Latin American Western European Division,
Library of Congress will
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:15 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] question about dates in 264 fields
From: Resource Description and
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Arakawa, Steven
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:39 AM
[SA]if you have a bracketed date in 264 _1 based on the copyright date, the
264 _4 is optional, if I'm interpreting
I do not know if LC PCC PS is interpreted correctly.
However,
RDA 2.8.6.6 says If the date of publication is not identified in a
resource... record the copyright date, and RDA 2.11 says copyright date
is a core element if...neither the date of publication ... is
identified.
I tend to think in
Transcription of copyright date is a core element (Mandatory) if neither
the date of publication nor the date of distribution is identified. This
is why the LC-PCC Policy Statement tells catalogers to supply a probable
publication date as much as possible, rather than recording date of
A slight tangent from the conversation:
In the interest of trying to learn about the 264 in RDA, I looked at the
MARC Bibliographic to RDA Mapping in the RDA Toolkit, the 264 isn't
there. Likewise, perhaps more surprisingly, the 264 also isn't in the
RDA to MARC Bibliographic Mapping.
Please
1.4 Language and Script
http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp1target=rda1-523#rda1-5
23 says: When recording an element listed above as a supplied element,
record the supplied element in the most appropriate language and script.
Place of publication is one of the elements
There is something strangely circular about the LC-PCC PS's. This is partly
due to the fact that they leave a wide window open for confusion about what it
means for a date of publication, etc., to be identified. To me that does not
mean filling in a subfield with substitute information based
I was just looking at that. I believe that the problem is that the Toolkit
hasn't yet been updated to reflect the existence of 264. The MARC21
Bibliographic Format on Cataloger's Desktop was just updated very recently to
include it. Until a few days ago, the only place to find it was on the LC
264 is not mentioned in the mapping appendices in the Toolkit because the
those appendices are in the process of being updated.
- - - - - - - -
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
mailto:debo...@marcofquality.com debo...@marcofquality.com
http://www.marcofquality.com www.marcofquality.com
10 matches
Mail list logo