-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Question about RDA and 264 field
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:51:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paige G Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To: Air Photo Maps, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship <[log in to unmask]>
Allison,
I have already switched to using the 264 field for publication,
production, manufacture, copyright data in map cataloging, though I am
working with contemporary materials. Most will ask "why?" because yes
potentially there is more work involved. But, weighing the pros and
cons, and keeping the long view in mind when MARC will be replaced with
a different kind of input standard that needs to have data parsed out in
such a manner so that it extensible with other metadata schemas as well
as enhancing access to our materials, the 264 field allows for a much
greater level of specificity of information. In particular, it separates
out the different *types* of Imprint-related data, because there are
inherent differences in meaning from, say, a publication date vs. a
copyright date.
Anyway, the switch takes a little getting used to, in part because the
264 field is repeatable for obvious reasons, and in part because one now
has to pay much closer attention to the type of information one is
sharing (publication vs. manufacture or production vs. publication) and
thus how the Indicators are appropriately coded and where data goes in
the field.
I would think with historical materials you would be much more worried
about data related to production or manufacture, and so let me point out
that the definitions for these things are very explicit and do affect
whether or not it is appropriate to use one or the other. For
contemporary materials it is much more common to be focused on either
publication or copyright data. All of these variables are accounted for
in the 264 field, though sometimes, depending on the circumstance, one
must deploy multiple 264 fields to accommodate multiple situations.
Here's an example I recently used for a map that had both publication
information and copyright date:
264 1 [Reading, Pa.] : $b Berks County Planning Commission, $c 1978.
264 4 [Norristown, Pa.] : $b Vernon Graphics of Pennsylvania, Inc., $c
[copyright symbol]1960.
where you can see that information for Publisher/Publication is in the
first one listed, and information for the copyright holder and date is
in the second one.
Just one example of a "mix and match" possible scenario. In fact, more
commonly you'll begin seeing records (perhaps) that have a first 264
with place of publication, publisher, publication date and then a second
one with only the $c for copyright date because the place of publication
and publisher is the same and thus not necessary to repeat.
Anyway, I do hope others who have begun using this field will share
their experiences. And...yes...you can apply the 264 field in AARC2R
cataloging now, you don't have to wait to implement RDA. Though, what
you do have to worry about before making a switch is how your local
system will/can index this (and other) field and make choices on display
information. We already have set up our Sirsi system to index the field
and its components and decided (I believe) to display all components,
though if we changed the textual field label I'm not aware of what it is
off the top of my head.
Paige
----- Original Message -----
From: "Angie Cope, American Geographical Society Library, UW Milwaukee"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:04:37 PM
Subject: Question about RDA and 264 field
------- Original Message --------
Subject: Question about RDA and 264 field
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:03:36 -0400
From: Allison Rich <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Organization: John Carter Brown Library
To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
<[log in to unmask]>
Hello All:
For those of you adopting RDA for cartographic material and for those of
you who work with maps created before ca. 1830, can you tell me if you
will be adopting the 264 field
and how you will work it into the MARC record?
For example, here is the info given in the guidelines for field 264
Second Indicator - Function of entity
0 - Production
Field contains a statement relating to the inscription, fabrication,
construction, etc., of a resource in an unpublished form.
1 - Publication
Field contains a statement relating to the publication, release, or
issuing of a resource.
2 - Distribution
Field contains a statement relating to the distribution of a resource.
3 - Manufacture
Field contains a statement relating to the printing, duplicating,
casting, etc., of a resource in a published form.
4 - Copyright notice date
Field contains a date associated with a notice of protection under
copyright or a similar regime. Copyright dates include phonogram dates
(i.e., dates associated with claims of protection for sound recordings).
Subfield Codes
$a - Place of production, publication, distribution, manufacture
264 #1 $a Boston : $b [publisher not identified], $c2010.
264 #3 $a Cambridge : $b Kinsey Printing Company
[On source: Published in Boston, 2010; Cambridge -- Kinsey Printing
Company; No distribution information]
$b - Name of producer, publisher, distributor, manufacturer
264 #1 $a [Place of publication not identified] : $b ABC Publishers,
$c2009.
264 #2 $a Seattle : $b Iverson Company
[On source: ABC Publishers, 2009; distributed by Iverson Company, Seattle]
$c - Date of production, publication, distribution, manufacture, or
copyright notice
264 #4 $c©2002
264 #4 $c 1983
264 #4 $c copyright 2005
I am interested in hearing how maps cataloguers who deal with older and
"rare" materials will be dealing with RDA so that I can get a better
idea whether we should adopt it immediately next year or hold off for a bit.
At the moment I use AACR2 format as there is no DCRM standard for
cartographic materials.
Your input and suggestions are much appreciated.
Best,
~Allison Rich
--
********************************
"Outside of a dog, a book is probably man's best friend,
and inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx"
Allison Rich
Rare Books Cataloguer
John Carter Brown Library
Providence, Rhode Island
[log in to unmask]
********************************
|
