J. McRee Elrod | 6 Jul 21:10 2012

Re: 264 field in RDA bibliographic records

Mark posted:

> - PCC Guidelines: <http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/264-Guidelines.doc>

The PCC Guidelines state:

"The following guidelines assume that 260 and 264 fields may co-exist
in pre-RDA records and RDA records created before implementation of
264 ..."

This to me means that some records will have 260 and some 264 (not
that the two fields would co-exist in one record, as it might be
misunderstood to mean).  

Even though the PCC Guidelines assume 264 will be used in all future
RDA records, we will continue with 260 for these reasons:

Our investment in programming to handle records.

Our clients' present ILS.

Consistency with legacy records.

The absence of 264$e$f$g for reproductions.

We never used repeating 260 for some of the same reasons.

We think it would have been far better to reuse the long unused 260$d
to allow for separate coding of publication and copyright dates, or
have repeating $c with the copyright symbol to allow separate
manipulation if wanted, than to create this complication.  Field 264
allows things to be done we have never found a reason to do.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (mac@...)
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________


AUTOCAT quoting guide: http://www.cwu.edu/~dcc/Autocat/copyright.html
E-mail AUTOCAT listowners:             autocat-request@...
Search AUTOCAT archives:  http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/autocat.html
  By posting messages to AUTOCAT, the author does not cede copyright