I agree. I think that we should either always end in a period *or* never
end in a period. But this inconsistency makes things much more complicated
than they need to be.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Julie Moore
Fresno State
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:53 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Julie asked on
We've been puzzling over this here, too. I could see the logic in it if
were only putting a period after the last 264 field, but I'm pretty
mystified by putting it after the first but not the second. Although
often when you have two fields the first doesn't have a period either,
since it ends i
Please remove my name from your list. Thank you
(My apologies for the cross-posting)
Dear All,
In trying to move beyond the inexplicable inconsistent "period" issue ...
Now we have with the 264 the possibilities of:
2nd indicator entity functions of:
0 = Production
1 = Publication
2 = Distribution
3 = Manufacture Statements
4 = Copyright noti
Hi all,
I am cataloging a book where the copyright holder is different from the
publisher. Are we supposed to put this in the 264 4 field or is the date
the only information that goes there?
Thanks.
Jenny
Just the date. The RDA element (see RDA 2.11) is "Copyright date", not
"Copyright statement".
--Ben
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailt
There are something about core elements. The publication statement is core.
If there is no publication statement, distribution is going to be core. if
there is neither publication nor distribution, manufacture is going to be
core. Production is for unpublished materials. Copyright date is a core fo
Distribution would only be a core element if the publication element was
not identified. Manufacture would only be core element if neither the
publication nor the distribution element was identified. You COULD
provide everything you know but if you have publication place, publisher,
and date
Thanks, Adam!
Got it! I have often heard these "core if" statements, but I wasn't sure if
you happened to have all of that info, if you should put all of them -- and
it sounds like you could if you wanted to, but it's not required.
Thanks for clearing this up.
Best wishes,
Julie
On Thu, Jun 13
Just the date (preceded by (c) or (p)). You can record detailed copyright
status in field 542: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd542.html
Adam
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(2
Julie Moore asked on Autocat RDA:
>Are we required to provide all if we have all? If not, which ones are
>required?
Field 264 1, if known, is the only core one; 264 2 or 3 become core
only in the absence of data in 264 1.
We consider 264 0 needed, just as we provided that data in 260 cont
Follow up question ... why is it that I see the majority of RDA records
with multiple 264s having the 264 _1 (publication) and 264 _4?
Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they put
the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright date
-- so thus,
Jennifer Lob asked:
>I am cataloging a book where the copyright holder is different from the
>publisher. Are we supposed to put this in the 264 4 field or is the date
>the only information that goes there?
Only $c in 264 4. If you think the copyright holder is important, use
542.
__
I think many catalogers feel that since the copyright date is present on
the resource, they should record it even if they've given an inferred
publication date in 264 _1 $c. And some libraries have made it a local
core element. If it is present, I always record it.
Adam Schiff
^
Greetings everyone
I have been asked to forward this email to the list on behalf of another
library service (but I am very interested in the reply as well). Can anyone
give advice:
Hello
I'm just trying to get some clarification on the appropriate use of the
336-337-338 RDA tags to replace th
If all that you have is the copyright date, then it should look like this,
right?
264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified]
264 #4 $c ©2009
Is it OK or incorrect to add the copyright date in the 264 bracketed as an
inferred date? So it would look like this:
264 #1 $a Syracuse,
Julie,
LC-PCC Policy Statement for 2.8.6.6 says "Supply a date of publication if
possible, using the guidelines below, rather than give [date of
publication not identified]."
A. If an item lacking a publication date contains only a copyright date,
apply the following in the order listed:
1
Julie,
Strictly speaking once you've recorded or supplied a date of publication (264
_1 $c) you have fulfilled the RDA core requirement and can quit. However, if
there is in fact a date I found in the resource that I've used to infer the
date of publication I like to include it in the descripti
Thanks, Bob ...
It's getting a little clearer!
Julie :-)
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Robert Maxwell wrote:
> Julie,
>
> ** **
>
> Strictly speaking once you’ve recorded or supplied a date of publication
> (264 _1 $c) you have fulfilled the RDA core requirement and can quit.
> Howeve
Julie,
In addition to what Adam said, in current practice we are required to include
subfields $a, $b, and $c in 264 _1 even if we've included "core if" elements
later on, so your first example should read:
264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified], $c [date of
publication n
Bob,
Oh yes ... duh :-) ... I forgot the $c [date of publication not
identified]!
Are we still allowed to take a stab at the date if it's unknown ... for
example, if there is absolutely no date on the item anywhere, but you're
pretty sure it was published in this decade, is it OK to put $c [201?
The content type would be “still image”. The media and carrier type depend on
the carrier. If it’s a regular photograph the media type is “unmediated” and
the carrier type is probably “card” (or possibly “sheet”). “Sheet” is defined
in the glossary as “a flat piece of thin material;” “Card” is
You have to do something like "[between 2000 and 2010?]" (RDA 1.9.2.4) or
"[between 2000 and 2010]" (RDA 1.9.2.5). The first would be if you think it's
some time between the two dates but aren't sure-it might be earlier or later;
the second would be if you know it's some time between the two dat
According to LC's training material, a date such as "not after 2013" would be
coded as follows:
008/06: q
008/07-10:
008/11-14: 2013
I assume that in the case of a "not before date", code "" would appear in
positions 11-14 instead.
Daniel Paradis
Bibliothécaire
Direction du traitem
Thanks--that makes sense. I hope it makes it way into the MARC documentation.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confi
Bob ...
Yes, it was the [197-?] scenario that I was thinking of, where there is
nothing that tells you any kind of a date ... but you have the feeling that
it was probably made in the 70s ... possibly just based on your own
experience. I've been searching all over the place in RDA trying to find
t
Robert Maxwell asked:
>How do you code the MARC fixed date fields if you have a "not before"
.or a "not after" date of publication?
Fixed 008/07-10 date one has no question mark. but there is type of
date "q" questionable. I would code type of date "q" the year in 264
1 $c, or that decade wi
Julie Moore posted:
>264 #1 $a Syracuse, New York : $b [publisher not identified]
This $c helps no one. If you doubt the copyright year is the
publication year, you you may use a question mark as well as the
brackets.
>264 #4 $c =A92009
Not needed with [2009] or [2009?] in 264 1.
>264 #1 $a
Julie Moore asked:
>Are we still allowed to take a stab at the date if it's unknown ... for
>example, if there is absolutely no date on the item anywhere, but you're
>pretty sure it was published in this decade, is it OK to put $c [201?]
We are continuing AACR2's forbidding "[s.d.]", and continu
Anne Laguna posted:
>245 1 0 =B6aAerial view taken from a box kite=B6h[picture] /
>
>300 _ _ =B6a1 photographic print :=B6bb&w ;=B6c6 x 8 in.
RDA allows you to use as unit name (aka SMD) a popular term rather
than a term from the RDA carrier list. So this is fine.
The "b&w" should be "black an
Julie Moore asked:
>
>Is this because the only date they have is a copyright date ... so they put
>the publisher info in the 264 _1 $a and $b and sometimes $c [copyright date
Yes.
But if the inferred publication date and the copyright date are the
same year, I urge you to change the record to da
31 matches
Mail list logo
