Julie asked on Autocat and RDA:
From the PCC Guidelines for the 264 Field, I am hoping that someone can
please explain why the 264 _4 $c =A92009 does not end in a full stop?
There is no logical reason. SLC will use a full stop.
We should forget the ISBD fiction that periods at the end of
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 m...@slc.bc.ca wrote:
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
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
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
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 Production is for unpublished materials.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Thanks, Bob ...
It's getting a little clearer!
Julie :-)
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote:
Julie,
** **
Strictly speaking once you’ve recorded or supplied a date of publication
(264 _1 $c) you have fulfilled the RDA core requirement and
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
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
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
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 traitement
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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
