Re: [RDA-L] New ideas for 260

I do not see a conflict between either statement. Mark posits a relationship that is not automatically direct. Mac offers examples of how the potential relationships are not automatically direct and how they can vary with respect to which other date the copyright date is related. The nebulosity

Re: [RDA-L] New ideas for 260

J. McRee Elrod wrote: > >My assumption is that copyright dates in RDA have a related but not > directly > >linked association with production, publication, distribution and > >manufacture. > > But copyright date may differ from any of those dates, just as it may > differfrom publication date. Ne

Re: [RDA-L] New ideas for 260

Mark Ehlert said: >My assumption is that copyright dates in RDA have a related but not directly >linked association with production, publication, distribution and >manufacture. But copyright date may differ from any of those dates, just as it may differfrom publication date. New releases, reprin

Re: [RDA-L] New ideas for 260

J. McRee Elrod wrote: > Why no subfield for > copyright date in this proposal? > My assumption is that copyright dates in RDA have a related but not directly linked association with production, publication, distribution and manufacture. -- Mar

[RDA-L] New ideas for 260

http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-dp01.html This discussion paper addresses whether to have new subfields added to 260, have repeating 260s with indicators, or have new 26X fields, to accommodate RDA elements. When repeating 260 was first introduced to MARC21, in contradiction to AACR2, our