All new RDA records should have 264 fields not 260; RDA created during test may
have either or both fields; AACR2 legacy mostly have only 260. This is all very
accommodating, but where is the uniformity of practice? Does it not complicate
indexing or conversion?
RDA, LC, PCC, OCLC seem not to ha
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 6:42 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
What Robert said is true, but there is an LCPS for 2.8.1.4 that says:
LC practice for Optional
Pam Withrow asked:
>RDA Toolkit says this information goes in the 260 field, but this isn't the
>first time I've seen the 264 field used. Could someone please clarify?
According to PCC, all new RDA records should have 264, not 260; field
264 had not been extablished during the test period.
Sinc
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Snow, Karen wrote:
> Thank you so much, Robert! (and everyone else who responded to my email).
> I noticed that option at 2.8.1.4, but didn't connect the dots to what I was
> doing. Since Vintage Departures is a series statement (thanks John Hostage)
> and I have
What Robert said is true, but there is an LCPS for 2.8.1.4 that says:
LC practice for Optional omission: Generally do not omit levels in
corporate hierarchy.
So LC catalogers will generally transcribe the publisher statement as
found in a resource. The PCC practice for this omission has not
-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Snow, Karen
mailto:ks...@dom.edu>> wrote:
I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following
publication information (on the title page of the work):
Vinta
My comments interspersed below. --Adam
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Buzz Haughton wrote:
Hello, Pamela!
LC announced the implementation of the 264 MARC field in June. The last time I
looked, OCLC still had nothing about
it, but you can get the basic layout at:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Snow, Karen wrote:
> I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following
> publication information (on the title page of the work):
> Vintage Departures
> Vintage Books
> A Division of Random House, Inc.
> New York
>
> Hi Karen
It is my underst
PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
Hello, Pamela!
LC announced the implementation of the 264 MARC field in June. The last time I
looked, OCLC still had nothing about it, but you can get the basic layout at:
http://www.loc.go
Hello, Pamela!
LC announced the implementation of the 264 MARC field in June. The last
time I looked, OCLC still had nothing about it, but you can get the basic
layout at:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html
264 requires a second indicator, usually #1 (publication) and/or #4
(copyri
GC.CA
> Subject: [RDA-L] Transcription of more than one publisher
>
> I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following
> publication information (on the title page of the work):
> Vintage Departures
> Vintage Books
> A Division of Random House, Inc.
> N
RDA Toolkit says this information goes in the 260 field, but this isn't the
first time I've seen the 264 field used. Could someone please clarify?
Thanks,
Pamela Withrow
Cataloger
Perma-Bound Books
Jacksonville, IL 62650
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Snow, Karen wrote:
> I am trying to det
I would transcribe it as: New York : Vintage Books.
Vintage Books is an established corporate body name. "Vintage Departures"
seems to be something else instead of the corporate body name.
Thanks,
Joan Wang
Illinois Heartland Library System
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Snow, Karen wrote:
I am trying to determine what to transcribe in 264$b for the following
publication information (on the title page of the work):
Vintage Departures
Vintage Books
A Division of Random House, Inc.
New York
(Note: "Vintage Departures" is printed using slightly larger font than the
other names and Ne
14 matches
Mail list logo