l.para...@banq.qc.ca
http://www.banq.qc.ca
-Message d'origine-
De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Benjamin A Abrahamse
Envoyé : 31 janvier 2013 12:59
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : Re: [RDA-
rv.lac-bac.gc.ca
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
>
> Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date was also in
> that field, which you wouldn't be able to distinguish from a copyright date
> without the symbol or wo
tserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Greta de Groat
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:41 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Good point, Nancy, i didn't remember that the phonogram date was also in that
field, which you
Freta said:
>
>The LC-PCC-PS was recently updated to indicate that the requirement was to =
>infer the date of publication from the copyright date and bracket it, but i=
>t no longer says to record the copyright date. Therefore, following this p=
>ractice, one would have a bracketed date in the 2
ce Description and Access / Resource Description and Access"
Cc: "Greta de Groat"
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:50:06 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I will add one thing to Greta's very clear explanation.
While the field explicitly
m: "PATRICIA A GS-11 USAF AETC AUL FOGLER/LTSC"
To: "Greta de Groat" , "Resource Description and Access
/ Resource Description and Access"
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:53:13 AM
Subject: thanks -- RE: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I ve
11:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
Since i see that a Stanford record is being cited in this discussion, i would
like to offer a little in the way of explanation.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
e -
From: "SEVIM MCCUTCHEON"
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:29:20 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in OCLC:
If you're using 264s, and the
, PATRICIA A GS-11
USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:12 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I'll apologize in advance for the length of this.
I'm trying to work up some RDA training for my copy cataloging
half Of MCCUTCHEON, SEVIM
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:29 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I think perhaps despite the discussion, a question remains on coding in
OCLC: If you're using 264s, and the date of public
V.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I'll apologize in advance for the length of this.
I'm trying to work up some RDA training for my copy cataloging staff and am
working through a number of DLC RDA records that we are downloading.
For the p
SERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA?>] *On Behalf Of *Jenny Wright
*Sent:* 30 January 2013 09:30
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA <mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I too have wondered about this - an instruction to record co
cataloging records.
Linda Frankel
MLIS Student at San Jose State University
-Original Message-
From: Meehan, Thomas
To: RDA-L
Sent: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 2:07 am
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I agree with Jenny: I would love to know the reasoning
tion and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Beth Guay
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:23 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca<mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I'm hung up on the RDA inst
-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: 29 January 2013 20:25
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
I think you have a good
half Of Beth Guay
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:23 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
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
nt: 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 &
I have found this 264 _1 with 264 _4 coding to be a major time consumer
when using RDA. For my local system, I must now copy what I put in 264 _4,
e.g. ©2010 into 264 _1, delete the former, and then download. I fail to see
what the repetition of what I put into these two MARC fields accomplishes
fo
Patricia asked:
>
>Do we advise copy catalogers to edit to 264 or let all variations pass if
>essentially "correct" for when they were cataloged (as best they can tell!)
We will instruct that 264 4 be deleted if the $c is the same as 264
1, that date type be s, and only date 1 be coded, wheth
Patricia posted:
>260 Stanford, California : |b Stanford University Press, |c [2012],
©2012
We would change to 264 1, remove the copyright date, and not do a 264
4, since the two dates are the same. We would code 008/06 "s" in this
case.
If the two dates differ, we would add the copyright dat
scription and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Joan Wang
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] RDA dtst t + a 260/264 muse on training question
So what is the purpose of AACR2 ru
So what is the purpose of AACR2 rule requiring a difference between
copyright and publication dates? Is it a stupid question?
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Snow, Karen wrote:
> Patricia Folger wrote:
> "The former coding in OCLC looks like
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
ca
http://www.banq.qc.ca
-Message d'origine-
De : Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de FOGLER, PATRICIA A GS-11
USAF AETC AUL/LTSC
Envoyé : 28 janvier 2013 13:12
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : [RDA-L] R
According to PCC guidelines on 264 field, all new original RDA records use
264 field.
My reading on Library of Congress Policy, transcribe copyright date if
there is one on piece. Supply an probable date if there is no publication
date.
Hopefully it help.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Lib
I'll apologize in advance for the length of this.
I'm trying to work up some RDA training for my copy cataloging staff and am
working through a number of DLC RDA records that we are downloading.
For the past year, we've had RDA records routed to our Non-DLC cataloger as we
wait for RDA to "
26 matches
Mail list logo
